Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2014/01/27 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the January 27, 2014 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, January 27, 2014 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: Sam Ciccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson, Stewart Dixon, Richard Plonsker, Richard Christoff and Jay Kennedy Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and 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. Approval of the minutes of the September 23, 2013 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The minutes of the November 25, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals were approved with one correction as requested by Chairman Franksen. 3. Consideration of a request for variances from the east and west side yard setbacks to accommodate additions at 1246 W. Deerpath. Owners: Mark and Rebecca Oline Representative: Michael Hershenson 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. Hershenson reviewed the site noting that the property is 100’ wide and the zoning requires a setback of 50’ from all property lines. He explained that given the size of the lot, the required zoning setbacks do not allow for any construction on the lot. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the footprint of the existing house. He explained the proposed project noting that a small addition is planned to the front of the garage to improve the appearance of the house. He stated that a new family room and a modest addition to the kitchen are planned along with a new master suite on the second floor. He reviewed the proposed first and second floor plans. He Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 2 noted that the expanded footprint does not extend into the setbacks beyond the existing footprint. He noted that the ridge of the roof extends up to allow the second floor addition. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations noting the area where the dormer will be added for the master suite and the areas where the footprint will be extended. He stated that the project was recently approved by the Building Review Board. He stated that the additions as proposed are appropriate and will not impact neighboring properties. He stated that five letters of support were received from neighbors. He stated that the hardship was created by the zoning and asked for support of the requested variances. Ms. Neuman reviewed the request noting that the intent of the project is to upgrade the appearance of the property and provide additional living space. She stated that as proposed, the additions do not extend beyond the line of the existing house and do not extend further into the required setback than the existing footprint. She explained that the property is located in a neighborhood which is zoned in a manner inconsistent with the lot sizes. She noted that other variances have been granted in this neighborhood given the pattern of zoning. She confirmed that the Building Review Board recently recommended approval of the architectural aspects of the project. She stated that staff recommends approval of the variances and offered that findings in support of the project are provided in the staff report. Chairman Franksen invited questions from the Board. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman confirmed that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a drainage plan will be required and will be reviewed and will subject to approval by the City Engineer. She stated that the issues raised in the letter from the neighbor will be considered in that review. She stated that City engineering staff reviewed the preliminary drainage plan and found that it appears workable. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed that a grading plan will also be required and will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the project will expand within the area of the current encroachment. She confirmed that the front and back setbacks not impacted by the proposed project. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff, hearing none, he asked for final comments from the Board. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 3 Board member Christoff made a motion to recommend approval of variances from the east and west side yard setbacks as requested and stated that the recommendation is based on the findings as detailed in the staff report and is subject to standard review and approval of the drainage and grading plan by the City Engineer. The motion was seconded by Board member Ciccarelli and was unanimously approved by the Board by a vote of 7 to 0. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance for a one car garage addition within the side yard setback at 670 Green Briar Lane. Owner: Mari Christopherson Representative: Tim Archibald, architect, Midwest Architecture Studio, Inc. 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. Archibald introduced the petition noting that the house is a mid-century modern design, a single story and is nicely maintained. He noted that there is an existing carport on the east side of the home and provided photos of the car port and the entry to the home. He stated that the owner’s goal is to construct an enclosed, one car garage to replace the carport. He added that the owner is interested in maintaining a clear sight line and path from the front of the property to the entry door. He noted that the property has an expansive back yard. He explained that to achieve the owner’s goal of maintaining a clear path between the house and the entry, the garage is pushed into the side yard setback slightly. He noted that the existing car port encroaches into the side yard setback 1-1/2 feet and that the proposed garage would encroach 4-1/2 feet, an increase of 3 feet over the encroachment of the carport. He reviewed the site plan and explained why the garage is proposed generally in the same location as the carport noting that the location functions best for the overall site and minimizes the need for additional pavement on the site. He reviewed a graphic comparing the extent of the current and proposed encroachments into the setback. He reviewed the floor plan and roof plans. He explained that the roof is configured to shed rainwater to the front and back, instead of to the side yard. He stated that the runoff will be collected in gutters and directed appropriately. He reviewed the existing and proposed front elevation and noted the location of the path to the front door that will result from the project. He reviewed some alternative designs that were considered and explained the drawbacks of each. He explained that conversion of the existing carport to a garage, without changing the foot print, was not possible because there is not enough head height to allow a garage door to be Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 4 installed. He confirmed that alternatives were explored which fully conform to the zoning setbacks, but noted that a garage of sufficient width was not achievable. He stated that an attached garage configuration was studied but created a bulky appearance and blocked visibility and foot traffic to the front door. He stated that the criteria for a variance are satisfied with this project. He acknowledged the letter received from the neighbor to the east and stated that he met with neighbor, walked the properties and understands the concern about drainage. He stated that as proposed, the project will not negatively impact drainage on the neighbor’s property. He stated that a drainage plan will be prepared in conjunction with this project for review and approval by the City Engineer. He stated that the drainage issue is really a larger one that affects the entire neighborhood. Ms. Neuman noted that the presentation was comprehensive and she acknowledged that the petitioner carefully considered alternatives before presenting the preferred option to the Board. She stated that City engineering staff is aware of the larger drainage concerns in this neighborhood and has been involved in discussions about possible solutions. She stated staff support for the variance as requested noting that findings in support are included in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Archibald confirmed that a new fence was recently installed by the petitioner. He noted that the petitioner offered to remove the sections of the fence on the east side of the garage if desired by the neighbor to create a more neighborly feeling and to offer the neighbor improved access. He noted that the new garage will provide the privacy desired by the petitioner in place of those sections of the fence. Board member Plonsker noted his own experience with drainage in close proximity to a fence noting that can be a difficult situation. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Archibald stated that the fence is on the property line and is located about 7-1/2 feet away from the wall of the proposed garage. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman stated that the fence is located in a manner consistent with the Code. She stated that the discussion about removing sections of the fence appears to be more of a neighbor to neighbor matter. In response to questions from Board member Plonsker, Mr. Archibald stated that his understanding is that the neighbor’s greatest concern is drainage which is a broader neighborhood issue and results in large part from the topography of the area. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 5 In response to questions from Board member Kennedy, Mr. Archibald commented on the neighbor’s drainage concerns and stated that the goal of this project is to address drainage at the base of the garage properly and to not worsen the existing drainage situation. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Mr. Archibald stated the intent to work with City engineering staff to determine how best to take water away from the base of the garage and how to handle the flow from the down spouts. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Ms. Neuman confirmed that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the City Engineer will need to review and approve the drainage and grading plan for the project. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff. Hearing none, he acknowledged that it is clear that drainage is an issue in this neighborhood. He noted that the narrow lots and limited setback area add to drainage concerns. He noted the petitioner’s efforts to explore options and stated that they have demonstrated that it is not possible to make a functional garage out of the existing carport. He noted that a further encroachment into the setback, an additional distance of 3 feet beyond what exists today, is reasonable given the conditions of the property. Board member Dixon stated that the project is a sound proposal. He stated confidence that the drainage issues related to this project will be properly addressed. Hearing no further comments from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Dixon made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested noting that the recommendation is supported by the findings detailed in the staff report. He reiterated that staff is directed to pay close attention to the drainage in the review of the plans submitted for permit. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved by the Board by a vote of 7 to 0. 5. Consideration of a request for a variance from the side yard setback for a small addition to the existing one story portion of the house at 770 E. Westminster. Owners: Michael and Elizabeth Luttig Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 6 Representative: Richard Swanson 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. Swanson introduced the project noting that the property is located at the intersection of Hawthorn Place and Westminster. He stated that exterior modifications are proposed to create a more consistent architectural style on the front elevation. He stated that the addition will provide additional space in the library to make it a more functional space. He added that the addition is also a subtle way of screening direct views of the garage doors from the streetscape. He noted that the house already encroaches into the setback in this area and the proposed addition will increase that encroachment to a small extent. He stated that the project recently received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. He provided photos of the existing house and pointed out the existing shed roof over the library and noted that the result is a 7-1/2’ high ceiling in the space. He noted other modifications proposed as part of the project that are not related to the request for a variance. He provided photos of neighboring homes and noted that some of the neighbors submitted letters in support of the project. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting how the driveway will be adjusted to better screen the garage doors. He explained that the addition proposes a 6’ extension of the library and pointed out the area of encroachment and noted the area of increase from the existing condition. He reviewed the floor plans and landscape plan. He presented a rendering of the house with the proposed addition. He noted that the project will not have a negative impact on the streetscape. He noted the slight modification to the bay window that will be made, removal of one level of lites, as directed by Historic Preservation Commission. He reviewed the criteria for a variance noting that the project satisfies the applicable criteria. Ms. Neuman noted that at the time the project was presented for initial staff review, the petitioner was asked to study alternative plans in an effort to eliminate or minimize the encroachment into the setbacks. She stated that in considering alternatives, it was determined that there was not a practical way to expand the room without some additional encroachment. She confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission supported the project and the associated building scale variance after finding that the applicable criteria were satisfied. She reviewed the limited portion of the project, the corner addition, which requires a setback variance and is the focus of the Board’s consideration. She noted that views of the addition from off of the site will be limited and noted the letters of support received from neighboring property owners. She stated that findings in support of the variance are detailed in the staff report. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 7 In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman clarified that the request is for a variance from the side yard setback and noted that the applicable criteria are reviewed in the staff report. She acknowledged that the petitioner addressed the criteria for a Special Use Permit in the materials submitted. Board member Dixon stated that the property is uniquely configured noting that he knows the neighborhood very well. He stated his support for the variance. In response to questions from Chairman Franksen, Mr. Swanson confirmed that the extent of the additional encroachment is 6 inches. Hearing no further questions from the Board, Chairman Franksen invited public testimony; hearing none, he invited final comments from the petitioner or staff, hearing none, he asked for final comments from the Board. Board member Kennedy stated that the project as proposed will enhance the appearance of the front of the house and will have no impact on the streetscape or neighboring property owners. Board member Plonsker complimented the project. Hearing no further comments Chairman Franksen invited a motion. Board member Plonsker made a motion to recommend approval of the variance from the required side yard setback as requested noting that the motion is supported by the findings detailed in the staff report. Board member Culbertson clarified that the motion includes the limitation that including the overhang, the addition will be no closer than 16 feet to the side yard property line. Board member Plonsker confirmed that his motion supports the project as presented, no closer than 16’ to the property line including the extent of the existing encroachment plus the additional 6 inches. The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and was unanimously approved by the Board by a vote of 7 to 0. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 27, 2014 Page 8 There was no other public testimony presented to the Board. 7. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information from City staff. The meeting was adjourned by Chairman Franksen at 7:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development