Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2013/04/02 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the April 2, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 2, 2013 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Chairman Rosemary Kehr and Board members Robert Franksen, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff, Stewart Dixon and Jay Kennedy. Zoning Board of Appeals Board members absent: Sam Ciccarelli Staff present: Megan Neuman, Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures Chairman Kehr 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 January 28, 2013 meeting The minutes of the January 28, 2013 meeting were approved with a correction as requested by Board member Franksen. NEW PETITIONS 3. Consideration of a request for a variance from the setback requirements for accessory structures to allow construction of a new detached garage at 460 Washington Road. Owners and Representatives: Stephen and Laura Douglass Chairman Kehr asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this petition. Mr. Douglass introduced the petition stating that he and his wife are 25 year residents of Lake Forest. He stated that his home was built in 1930 and was part of a larger property which came to be known as “Brownsville”. He explained that eight homes were built by the original family with one used as a primary residence and the others rented out for summer homes. He noted that his family is the first owner occupant of the home. He stated that the property is in the R-3 zoning district and is a lot-in-depth. He explained that he proposes to construct a new garage at the same location as the existing Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 2 garage. He noted that the garage is not very visible from the streetscape or from surrounding homes due to the location of other garages near his garage and due to vegetation on his properties and on other properties. He reviewed a site plan of his property and the surrounding properties. He reiterated that his lot is a lot-in -depth and pointed out that the house and garage are nonconforming with current setback requirements. He pointed out a 10 foot utility easement on his property near the garage noting that electric lines serving the neighborhood are buried in the easement, on his property. He reviewed diagrams illustrating the massing of the existing and proposed garage. He stated that the new garage is proposed at about 11” taller than the existing garage to accommodate standard garage doors. He reviewed photos of the existing garage. He reviewed the reasons why replacement of the existing garage is necessary explaining that the sill plate was rotted away before he purchased the property in 1992. He pointed out the temporary bricks and jacks he is using to support the structure because the current structural framing is undersized noting that the roof is framed with only 2 x 4’s and some have broken. He provided photos of the surrounding properties noting the location of various structures in relation to his garage. He noted in particular a grouping of garages near his garage. He pointed out the evergreens which further shield views of the garage noting that they will remain. He reviewed the plan for the new garage noting that it will be the same as the existing garage except that the size of the shed on the north side of the garage will be increased slightly so it can be used as a potting shed. He noted the simple roof planned for the shed. He reviewed each elevation of the replacement garage noting the detailing and reviewing the proposed garage doors. He stated that letters in support of the project from surrounding neighbors are included in the Board’s packet. He reviewed the criteria for variances noting that the new garage will be consistent with, but a vast improvement over, the existing garage and as a result, the project will not alter the character of the neighborhood. He noted that the utility easement and significant tree both located near the garage together create a unique condition. He added that the tree will be protected throughout construction in consultation with the City’s Certified Arborist. He noted that to protect the tree, the shed is being shifted slightly to the west from its present location. He noted that the current setback requirements were put in place by the City after the construction of the residence and garage and after creation of the lots. He stated that the new garage, unlike the existing garage, will be in compliance with the current building Codes with respect to structural framing. He stated that the proposed project will have no negative impact on surrounding property values. Ms. Neuman acknowledged that the existing garage is in serious disrepair and would essentially require complete rebuilding to restore it. She noted that the proposed garage will be more functional for the property owner primarily because of the slight increase in height to allow vehicles to enter. She stated Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 3 that current building Codes require a deeper foundation for new construction but stated that steps will be taken to protect the significant tree to the north of the garage. She clarified that the new garage will be no closer to the west property line than the existing garage noting that the distance is approximately 4 feet but the exact distance from the property line still needs to be verified. She added that the only changes from the existing garage include a slight increase in height to accommodate standard height garage doors and the shifting of the potting shed slightly further to the west, along the north wall of the garage, to protect the tree. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Douglass confirmed that after construction of the garage is completed, a new fence will be constructed along the west property line. He noted that the existing fence is in disrepair and currently is attached to the garage. He stated that the new fence will be setback from the garage. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Neuman explained that the City Arborist, in consultation with an independent consultant, will require protection measures for the tree to the north of the garage. She confirmed that replacement trees could be required if the tree does not survive. She stated that the City’s Arborist did not raise any concerns about the tree on the south property line. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Douglass stated that if the tree to the north of the garage is endangered, he will find another solution for the project. He stated that he does not want to lose the tree. He confirmed that the new garage will be detailed consistent with the house noting that the clapboards will have the same exposure, casement windows will match the house, the garage doors will have the appearance of carriage house doors and the roof will be cedar shingles. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Douglass stated that at the time that he purchased the property, the garage was already in a state of disrepair. He stated that the garage is usable on a limited basis at this time noting that not all of the garage doors work and that there are concerns about the stability of the structure. He added that currently, there is no power to the garage. He explained that he talked with contractors about repairing the garage, rather than replacing it, but commented that replacing the garage was determined to be the best approach. He stated that the new garage doors will be 8 feet in height but noted that the detailing of the header above the door and the rafters keep the height of the roof down resulting in an overall increase in height of only 11 inches. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she invited final questions or comments from the Board. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 4 Chairman Kehr commented that in another jurisdiction an owner allowed a house to become dilapidated to circumvent current zoning requirements noting however that the effort was not successful. She stated that in this case, the garage was in poor condition when the petitioners bought the property and the proposal is to replace the garage with a very similar new garage. She distinguished the present situation from one in which an owner allows a structure to deteriorate. Board member Franksen stated support for the petition agreeing that a new garage is appropriate in this situation. He noted that the minimal changes will allow the garage to be more functional given today’s needs. Board member Dixon complimented the petitioner on the thoroughness and detailed nature of the presentation. Chairman Kehr stated appreciation for the petitioners’ efforts to talk to neighbors and the letters of support presented to the Board. Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow construction of a replacement garage and potting shed within the required setback from the west property line, but no closer to the west property line than the existing garage, consistent with the plans presented to the Board. He noted that the recommendation is supported by the findings presented in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and was unanimously approved by the Board. 4. Consideration of a request for a variance from the setback requirements to allow modifications to the roof structure for a portion of the existing two story residence at 441 E. Westminster. Owners: Jim and Maureen Goodwin Representative: Bob Gebelhoff, designer Chairman Kehr asked the Board to declare any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she noted that she met Ms. Goodwin briefly when she visited the site. She swore in all those intending to speak on this petition. Mr. Goodwin stated that his family purchased this house in February and since then have done cosmetic work and repairs as required in any house constructed in the 1930’s. He explained that one of the issues they want to address is the addition made to the home in 1960. He explained that the addition is not in conformance with the zoning setbacks and is not in keeping with the Tudor style of the house. He explained that the Historic Preservation Commission was not in existence at the time the addition was done. He stated Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 5 that the intent is to try to re-work the addition to make it more consistent with the house and surrounding neighborhood. He explained that the proposal is to replace the existing flat roof with a gable roof. He noted that photos of the existing house are included in the Commission’s packet. He requested approval of a side yard variance, on the western side of the property, to allow the change in roof form. He explained that the change will actually reduce the amount of the encroachment into the setback from what exists today. He stated that no change is proposed to the footprint of the house. He pointed out the western property line and the location of the setback which cuts through the house. In response to a request from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Gebelhoff reviewed the existing and proposed roof forms. He stated that the aluminum siding on the 1960’s addition will be replaced with stucco and the flat roof will be replaced with a gable to match the existing gable to the east. He stated that the detail ing on the existing addition will be brought more in line with the details of the original house. He pointed out the zoning setback noting that it angles through the existing house. He noted that no square footage will be added as a result of the proposed change explaining that in fact, the roof will be lowered to line up with the existing eaves on the house reducing the extent of the encroachment of the mass into the setback. He reviewed the west elevation and provided an overlay of the existing conditions and proposed plans. He noted the windows that will be changed. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, He confirmed that the area of the reduced encroachment is reflected in the packet. Ms. Neuman reviewed that the existing structure is nonconforming with the side yard setback and is located 4.5 feet from the property line at the closest point. She repeated that no change is proposed to the footprint of the house and that the change to the roof mass will decrease the mass within the setback area. He noted that the eave line will be lowered a couple feet and the mass of the roof will slope away from the property line. She noted that this project was before the Historic Preservation Commission on March 20, 2013 and received approval. She stated that the intent of this project is to preserve and enhance the historic character of the home by modifying the earlier rear addition. She noted that letters of support from neighboring property owners are included in the Commission’s packet. She added that a concern was raised in a letter about protecting the fence located on the property line during construction. She noted that in discussions with the petitioners, staff learned that due to the tightness of the site, the type and size of construction equipment used for the project will be limited. She stated that staff recommends approval of the variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 6 In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the Historic Preservation Commission approved the proposed change to the roof mass and architectural detailing. She noted that one change was made to the windows as a result of the Commission’s review. In response to questions from Board member Franksen, Ms. Neuman confirmed that the existing house is non-conforming. She confirmed that no change in the footprint of the house is proposed, only a change to the roof line as noted in the plan. She explained that the proposed change reduces the extent of the encroachment by reducing the mass of the roof and improves upon the design of the 1960’s addition. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Gebelhoff confirmed that the footprint of the house will remain exactly the same. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Neuman explained that the house is in the City’s Local Historic District, that it was built in the 1930’s and is identified as a Contributing Structure to the District. She explained that Contributing Structures are properties that are unique, have architectural or social significance, are designed by significant architects or due to other factors, are noteworthy to the community. She explained that not all structures in the Historic District are identified as Contributing Structures. She commented that in this case, the 1960’s addition is not an element that contributes to the property’s significance. She stated that the project as proposed will result in a more cohesive design and enhance the property. Board member Christoff commended the project and thanked the petitioner for bringing it forward. Board member Kennedy also commended the project and asked that care be taken during construction to be sensitive to the neighbors and the fence due to the tightness of the site. Board member Franksen agreed that the project will be a good change. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she invited final comments from the Board, hearing none, she invited a motion. Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to allow alterations to the 1960’s addition including modification of the existing roof form to reduce the mass within the setback area. He clarified that the project does not include any change to the footprint of the house and that the new construction shall be located no closer than 4.5 feet to the west property line as depicted on the site plan presented to the Board. He added that the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 2, 2013 Page 7 recommendation includes a condition requiring that care be taken to avoid impact to the neighboring properties given the tightness of the site. The motion was seconded Board member Dixon and was unanimously approved by the Board. OTHER ITEMS 5. 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. 6. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information provided by staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development