Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/07/23 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the July 23, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, July 23, 2012, 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: Sam Ciccarelli, Stewart Dixon, Robert Franksen, Lloyd Culbertson, Richard Christoff and Jay Kennedy Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None Staff present: Megan C. O’Neill, Planner and Catherine J. 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 June 25, 2012 regular meeting. The minutes of the June 25, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. NEW PETITION 3. Consideration of a request for setback variances for additions to an existing residence at 10 S. June Terrace. Owners: Louis and Lindsay Nero Representative: Troy Mock, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Mock introduced the petition. He noted that the existing house is 25’-6” from the front yard setback. He noted that the required setback is 30’, not 40’ as noted on the drawings he provided to the Board. He reviewed the footprint of the existing house and the house with the proposed changes. He stated that the new porch will be wider than the existing but noted that it will not encroach any further into the front yard setback than the existing porch. He noted that the addition to the rear of the house does not require any variances. He provided an overview of the neighborhood and the existing front yard setbacks of various homes. He reviewed elevations of the proposed new front entry. He stated that the wider entrance porch will enhance the architectural appearance of the house and works well with the proposed dormers. He reviewed the existing and proposed elevations noting that the extent of the projection of the entry remains the same. He stated that the roof change maintains the same eave height but increases the height of the ridge to add useable space on the 2nd floor. He reviewed the other elevations. He reviewed overlay drawings noting the portions of the existing house that are not conforming to the setback requirements and noting the areas where there will be a change in the setbacks distance. He noted that a variance will be required for the chimney to allow the height of the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 2 chimney to be extended to meet Code requirements for separation between the chimney and the roof. He noted that the chimney is currently encroaching into the required setback. Ms. O’Neill stated that this project consists of removal of the existing roof and modification and elongation of the front porch. She clarified the zoning district requires a 40-foot front yard setback however; a 30-foot setback is established on the approved plat of subdivision. She noted the overlay drawing that was provided after the packets were delivered which shows how the existing house relates to the proposed design and pointed out the area of the requested variances. She stated that the project maintains a consistent setback with the other homes on the street. She noted that the consistent setback of homes from the street define the character of the neighborhood. She added that construction of a usable front porch enhances the project while maintaining the prevailing setback along the street. She stated that the Building Review Board considered this petition and continued the matter with direction to the petitioner to refine various architectural features but noted that none of the requested changes impact the footprint or height of the structure. She commented that this project is before the Zoning Board in an effort to move the project along despite not having final approval by the Building Review Board. She stated that there are findings in the staff report in support of the project. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Mock noted that the proposed new roof element is 6’ taller than the existing condition. Board member Culbertson questioned if the project will impair light and air, noting that the drawings submitted do not include a streetscape elevation. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the exact height of the surrounding structures is not noted on the plans; however the issue of compatibility with the streetscape was not raised as a negative point by the Building Review Board meeting. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson regarding the correspondence received from the neighbor with respect to drainage, Mr. Mock noted that the drainage issues experienced in the past may be a result of other construction projects that are more directly related to the neighbor’s property. He noted that this project is small in scale and should not have drainage impacts on other properties. Ms. O’Neill noted that this is a neighborhood with small lots and drainage is always a concern. She stated that a grading and drainage plan will be required at the time of permit noting that a preliminary review of the information provided by the petitioner was completed and no significant issues were identified. In response to questions from Board member Franksen, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Building Review Board did not have any issues with the footprint of the structure as proposed but requested additional information on the materials, details and proportions of the openings. In response to a question from Board member Franksen, Ms. O’Neill stated that the variance is requested to allow the front porch and chimney to be expanded within the setback area. She noted that the rest of the project is in compliance with the zoning setbacks. She noted that the areas where a significant height increase is proposed are outside of the setback area. Board member Culbertson stated his understanding that the proposed increase in height is within Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 3 the purview of the Board if the overall project that results from granting a variance impairs light and air to neighboring properties. Mr. Mock stated that every effort has been made to keep the height low while achieving the proper roof pitch for the architectural style. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that no other correspondence was received. She clarified the proposed height based on the drawings in the Board’s packets. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Mock stated that the existing rear addition, the dining room, is on a slab and cannot support a second story. He stated that the rear addition will be removed to accommodate an expanded family room and mud room in the same location and will be constructed to support the new second floor. He stated a commitment to do whatever is needed to make sure water runoff is not any greater or faster than the existing condition. He stated that a full set of engineering drawings will be submitted with the application for a building permit. Chairman Kehr invited public comment and swore in those intending to speak. Richard Behrens, 2 June Terrace, stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for over 10 years and reviewed the construction that has occurred on surrounding properties. He stated that he has seen a material different in the amount of stormwater runoff as a result of the construction projects completed over the years. He noted that increasing the footprint of the house by 8 to 10 percent may cause water to run off on to his property. He stated that foliage has been removed from the subject property which previously mitigated the runoff of water from the property to his. He asked that the Board consider drainage impacts on his property. In response to public comment and a question from Chairman Kehr, Ms. O’Neill noted that the Building Review Board reviewed a preliminary landscape plan for this site and confirmed that replanting of the rear yard will be required consistent as part of the project and consistent with Code requirements. Board member Franksen stated that this project is not unlike other recent petitions. He noted the in this neighborhood, a vast majority of houses do not conform to the setbacks established by the zoning district. He noted that a variance is necessary to upgrade the house and commented that in this case, the porch addition is similar to what exists and the chimney expansion is necessary to meet Code requirements. He stated that this project should add value to the neighborhood. Board member Dixon stated support for the petition. He recognized the neighbor’s concern about drainage and stated his expectation is that drainage issues will be addressed as part of the permitting process. Chairman Kehr invited final comments from the petitioner’s representative, hearing none; she invited a motion from the Board. Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested to the City Council to allow construction of an expanded porch, roof alterations and a chimney Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes July 23, 2012 Page 4 extension, portions of which encroach into the zoning setbacks as detailed on the plan. Specifically, the porch addition and roof alteration may encroach into the setback to a distance no closer than 25 feet to the east property line and the chimney extension may encroach into the setback to a distance no closer than 5 feet to the south property line. He stated that his motion includes the condition of approval noted below. Condition: In light of the small size of the lots, the increased coverage of the lot with pervious surface and the proximity of neighboring homes, City staff is directed to conduct a rigorous review of the drainage plans and landscaping plans to assure that no drainage impacts affect neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and it was unanimously approved by the Board. 4. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for The Winter Club, located at 956 N. Sheridan Road. The proposed changes include the addition of a paddle court, modification of parking areas and expansion of the club boundaries to include an adjacent property currently owned by the Club. Owner: The Winter Club Representative: Peter Witmer, architect This item was postponed at the request of the petitioner. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There was no additional public comment presented to the Board. 6. Additional information from staff. Ms. O’Neill announced that the Board is scheduled to have an August meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development