Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/08/30 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the August 30, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, August 30, 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, Lloyd Culbertson and Richard Christoff Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Jay Kennedy and Robert Franksen Staff present: 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 July 23, 2012 regular meeting. The minutes of the July 23, 2012 meeting were approved as submitted. NEW PETITION 3. Consideration of a request for setback variances for additions to an existing residence at 135 S. Maywood Road. Owner: Steward S. Dixon, Jr. Representative: Matthew Kerouac, architect Chairman Kehr asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Stewart Dixon stated that the petition involves his property. He recused himself from participating in the petition and left the Council Chambers. Chairman Kehr swore in all those planning to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner’s representatives. Mr. Kerouac introduced the petition. He noted that variances from the corner side yard and rear yard setbacks are requested to allow for expansion of the front porch, an expanded second floor and expansion of the garage. He described the existing house noting that it is a three bedroom, cottage-style home, with a small garage. He stated that the additions are designed to be consistent with the aesthetics of the existing house. He explained that an expanded and covered front porch is proposed to provide protection from the weather and to balance the scale of the entry with the additions proposed to the house. He noted that the expansion of the second floor space will accommodate a bedroom, bathroom and play/study room. He stated that the expansion of the garage will provide second floor space for the home and expand the garage from a single car garage to a two car garage to accommodate a second vehicle and provide storage for other family items. He reviewed diagrams illustrating the encroachment of the existing house into the corner side yard and rear yard setbacks and pointed out the additional Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 2 encroachments into the setbacks areas that will result from the proposed additions. He presented elevations of the house with the proposed additions. Ms. Czerniak stated that this property is located in the established Northmoor neighborhood, a neighborhood of mostly smaller properties and houses. She stated that because many homes in this neighborhood were built prior to the establishment of the current setback requirements, many of the homes are non-conforming to the current setbacks. She stated that the Dixon property is located across the street from South Park, on the southeast corner of Northmoor and Maywood Roads. She stated that homes in this area have particular challenges with respect to additions and alterations due to the small lots. She noted that in the past, the Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended approval of front yard variances in this neighborhood to allow modifications to front porches and in some cases has also recommended approval of side yard variances to allow second floor space to be built out over an existing first floor footprint that already encroaches into the setback area. She stated that corner properties, such as the Dixon property, are more challenging due to the more restrictive setback requirements for these types of lots. She reviewed the required setbacks on each side of the property noting that a 40’ setback is required in the front and the corner side yards which in the case of this property are located on the north side, along Northmoor Road and on the west side, along Maywood Road. She stated that a 35’ rear yard setback is required from the south property line, near the garage and a 10’ setback is required along the side yard which is the east side of the property. She reviewed that the petition requests variances from the corner side and rear yard setbacks to allow the expansion of the house to accommodate the needs of the family currently living in the house. She explained that the front porch is proposed for expansion within the corner side yard setback area. She added that the existing one story link between the house and the garage will be brought forward and increased in height to provide the desired interior space and provide a link to new space that will be created above the garage. She explained that the existing garage is proposed to be increased in height and brought forward to increase its functionality. She confirmed that the Building Review Board preliminarily considered this petition from a massing and design perspective and stated general support for the project but noted a need for refinement of massing and detailing. She noted that a subcommittee of the Board was appointed to provide input to the petitioners and staff as refinements are considered and before the project returns to the Building Review Board for final action. She noted that the Board in particular expressed concern about the potential for the garage becoming the dominate visual element of the house. She stated her expectation that any refinements to the design and massing will be within the scope of the variances presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals. She concluded pointing out that findings in support of the variances requested are included in the staff report. She suggested that if the Board determines that the requested variances meet the applicable criteria, it would be appropriate to make the recommendation for approval subject to final approval of the project by the Building Review Board. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Kerouac stated that as proposed, the height of the garage would be increased by 7 feet. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Kerouac confirmed that the driveway will need to be reworked along with the walkway that leads around the house. He stated that the amount of asphalt will remain the same noting that brick pavers will be added to provide access to the new garage bay. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 3 In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that extension of the walkway into the setback area is permitted because it will be at grade. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Kerouac acknowledged that the encroachment into the rear yard setback is small, 1’-6”, but explained that the extra space provided by the encroachment is critical to gaining livable spaces. He noted that with the steepness of the garage roof, the second floor interior space is very limited. He stated that the plan attempts to maximize the interior space to get the best possible project given the quaintness of the existing house. He acknowledged that eliminating the rear yard encroachment may make approval simpler, but pointed out that only the wall of the garage, not the roof or proposed dormers, encroaches into the setback. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Kerouac stated that he does not know the exact height of the neighboring house at 631 Northmoor Road, but stated that in his opinion, the neighboring house is taller than the proposed height for this project. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Kerouac confirmed that he is comfortable that the setback variances requested are sufficient to allow refinement of the project to address the concerns of the Building Review Board. He stated that the design and massing changes will not result in a greater encroachment into any of the setback requirements than now proposed. In response to further questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak clarified that if the design presented to the Building Review Board results in a lesser encroachment into the setback than now presented, no further review by the Zoning Board of Appeals will be required. She added that if any further encroachment is proposed, the petition will need to be reconsidered by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Kehr recalled another petition considered by the Board in this neighborhood dealing with the expansion of a one car garage to a two car garage. She recalled in that petition the garage was even closer to the street than in this petition. However, she questioned whether the garage could be stepped back at all to minimize the extension of the garage toward the street. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Kerouac explained that the garage cannot be moved to the east because it will impact a significant Oak tree located in that area. He stated that this option was dismissed after discussion with the City’s certified arborist. He pointed out that the garage as proposed will not extend beyond the front of the main portion of the house. Chairman Kehr invited public comment, hearing none; she invited final comments from the petitioner or staff, hearing none, she asked for final Board comments and a motion if appropriate. Board member Ciccarelli made a motion to recommend approval of the requested variances based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to approval of the final design and massing by the Building Review Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Christoff and was unanimously approved by the Board members present in a 4-0 vote. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 4 Board member Dixon re-joined the Board. 4. Consideration of a request for an amendment to the Special Use Permit for The Knollwood Club, located at 1890 Knollwood Road. The proposed changes include the addition of a paddle court and modifications of an existing paddle court and adjacent parking area. Owner: The Knollwood Club Representative: Randall W. Harper, General Manager 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 the petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Harper introduced the petition and noted that several members of the Knollwood Club Board are present to show support for the project. He stated that the Knollwood Club was established in 1924 to provide facilities for community sports and social activities. He stated that the Knollwood Club is requesting an amendment to its existing Special Use Permit to allow the addition of a fourth paddle court and relocation of another court. He noted the location of the existing paddle facilities behind the clubhouse. He stated that since 2008, participation in paddle has increased by 66 percent at the Club. He explained that 150 Club members are paddle players and that expanded facilities are needed. He reviewed the site plan noting the location of Knollwood Lane, the two parallel courts, the third off set court and the paddle hut. He stated that as part of this project, the third paddle court will be shifted to be in line with the other two existing courts and the new court will be offset from the other courts. He pointed out the trees that will be impacted and stated that the Club is committed to planting new landscaping to provide improved screening of the area. He noted that there is currently buckthorn along Knollwood Lane which is being cleared to allow replanting. He confirmed that there will be 8 overhead lights on the new court and on the relocated court. He stated that the lights will be 20’ tall, the same height as those on the existing courts. He pointed out that the lighting level off of the Club property will be minimal noting that the new lights will be more focused in a downward direction than the existing lights to prevent light spillover. He stated that after discussion, the Club has determined that it would be in the best interest of the neighbors as well as the Club to replace the lights on the existing courts at the time the lights for the new court and relocated court are installed so all of the fixtures will direct light downward. He confirmed that eight lights are proposed on each court replacing the six currently on the existing courts and stated that all of the lights will be controlled by an automatic timer to assure that they are turned off no later than 11 p.m. He explained that the fourth court is proposed not to support an increase in the number of players, but instead, to provide a better setting for league play by allowing four games to be played simultaneously. He stated that currently, with three courts, one team is always sitting out, waiting for a court resulting in play extending further into the evening hours. He explained that peak paddle season begins in October and extends through March noting that this time of year is a slower time for other activities occurring at the Club so fewer members and employees are on site. He described the parking area adjacent to the paddle courts noting that it serves as the access for deliveries and trash pickups in the back of the Clubhouse. He stated that the same number of parking spaces will remain after the new paddle court is installed. He stated that two new policies are proposed to address existing parking issues: 1) employees will be required to park in main parking lot on the other side of the Clubhouse and 2) paddle players arriving after the lot near the courts is full will be required to park in the main lot or use the valet service provided by the Club. He stated that deliveries and trash pickups occur in the morning Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 5 when use of the paddle courts is low. He stated that policies would be put in place requiring that the circulation route through the parking lot is kept clear. He stated that the Club has had a discussion with the neighbor to the west and stated that concerns raised were addressed. He stated the Club’s commitment to more regularly maintain the Knollwood Lane streetscape. Ms. Czerniak stated that staff has been in discussions for several months with the Knollwood Club about the desire to add a fourth paddle court. She stated that as with any non-residential use in a residential area, requests to expand uses or facilities are looked at carefully and comprehensively, not incrementally. She added that this is also an opportunity to look at any current problems or unresolved issues, and pointed out that the request must be considered in the context of unintended consequences. She noted that as evidenced by this petition, and the next, there is growing interest in the sport of paddle. She noted that unlike the Winter Club, the Knollwood Club was platted as part of a subdivision with homes interspersed around the Club property. She noted that interplay between the residential homes and Club uses were always intended. She stated that background on the Knollwood Club is provided in the staff report but confirmed that the Club was established well before the Code requirements for a Special Use Permit. She stated that in early discussions about this project, staff, working with Club representatives, explored alternatives including different locations for the new court as well as alternate options for the entire paddle complex and considered the impacts on each. She stated that for various reasons none of the alternatives studied proved workable, but the exercise was valuable. She stated that a review of the study of alternatives is provided in the Statement of Intent submitted by the Club. She reviewed the current proposal noting that the staff report, as well as Mr. Harper’s presentation, addresses various aspects of the proposal. She stated that in particular, lighting must be carefully considered to balance the intensity of light needed to support play with respect for the dark atmosphere of the surrounding residential area. She stated that the selection of the light fixtures and as necessary, the attachment of baffles, will be important. She stated that parking is an issue that needs to be addressed noting that the existing parking lot is at times filled beyond its capacity restricting movement and ingress and egress. She acknowledged that at staff’s request, the Club brought forward parking policies as reviewed by Mr. Harper. She stated that two letters were received from neighboring property owners and were provided to the Board. She stated that a neighbor, Mr. Bartlett, asked that she convey his desire to be present at the meeting but due to another matter, is not able to attend. She noted that a landscape plan was recently submitted, but not yet reviewed by staff noting that no vegetation should be removed until approval of the plan is granted. She added a point that was omitted from the staff report noting that the Code does not permit amplified sound outdoors. She noted that recommended conditions of approval are provided in the staff report. She stated that the neighbors do have some concerns that deserve consideration. At the request of Chairman Kehr, Ms. Czerniak summarized the substance of the two letters received from neighboring property owners. She noted that one neighbor offered general support of the project but noted that on occasion, the lights on the courts are left on after play. She added that the letter expressed concerns about parking, safety concerns on the road and noted that the activity generates noise. She reviewed the second letter noting that it was submitted by the owner of two properties located across Knollwood Lane from the courts. She noted that the letter stated that the streetscape is unkept and noted concern about the proximity of the proposed court to his vacant property and the potential impact on the value of that property as a result of the plans. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 6 In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Czerniak reviewed the locations of the two properties owned by Mr. Bartlett, the developed property and the undeveloped parcel. She confirmed that the vacant parcel is a buildable lot and noted that the future driveway access to the vacant lot would be from Knollwood Lane, approximately opposite the entrance to the Knollwood parking lot near the paddle courts. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli who stated that parking is a red flag since he is aware of parking by paddle players in the past on Knollwood Lane, Mr. Harper explained that the Club plans to notify the players and leagues about the new parking regulations and to offer valet service. He stated that the most significant change to the parking is that employees will no longer be permitted to park in the lot near the paddle courts; they will be required to park in the main lot. He pointed out that employee parking is at its peak in summer, when paddle leagues are not playing. He acknowledged that the Club will need to have a good communication plan and install signage about the new regulations. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Harper confirmed that consideration was given to moving the entire paddle complex to another location on the Club grounds. He noted that there are logistical challenges presented by moving the paddle complex away from the main clubhouse that make that option unworkable from an operational perspective. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Pasquesi explained that traditional paddle courts are in sets of four. He stated that there would never be a situation when the Club would need to add a fifth court. He pointed out that the new court will be located in nearly the same footprint as the existing court which will be shifted to align with the other two courts. He noted that the lighting on all of the courts will be improved using fixtures that focus lighting on the courts and eliminate light spillover. He added that by having four courts, play time will be shortened because play will not need to be staggered. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Harper confirmed that thought has been given to the practical question of how paddle players will get to the courts from the off-site designated parking areas. He reiterated that the Club’s valet service will be available and paddle players will be encouraged to use it. He stated that a sign could be posted on Knollwood Lane when the parking lot near the courts is full to advise players that they must park in the other designated spots. He pointed out that adding a fourth court will not add to the number of players on site at any time for a tournament, but will allow play to proceed more efficiently. He confirmed that snow removal occurs throughout the day and evening as needed. He acknowledged that more consideration needs to be given to how to prevent parking on Knollwood Lane. Board member Culbertson encouraged the Club to identify possible unintended consequences of adding the fourth court and to think proactively about how they can be addressed before proceeding with the project. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Pasquesi offered that boulders could be placed along the edge of the pavement of Knollwood Lane to prevent parking along that road. In response to further questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Harper confirmed that he is Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 7 aware that the key to the success of proposed parking and use regulations will be communication and enforcement. He stated that the Club is willing to replace the lights on all of the courts and install fixtures that direct the lighting downward and limit off site impacts. He also stated that all of the lights on the courts will be put on a timer to assure that they go off no later than 11:00 p.m. reiterating that with a fourth court to speed play, the lights may be able to be turned off earlier. He confirmed that no outdoor speakers exist or are proposed. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that there are no lighting requirements from the Code that apply to the paddle courts because the Club is authorized by the Special Use Permit which provides for lighting of the courts subject to conditions. She confirmed that staff has not yet had a chance to review the landscape plan that was shown to the Board on the screen. She stated that a landscape plan and tree removal plan will need to be reviewed prior to the issuance of any permits and before any trees or vegetation are removed or planted. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Harper explained that the intent of the landscape plan is to provide additional screening of the Club facilities from the neighboring property owners and to improve upon current maintenance. Chairman Kehr stated that she visited the paddle courts about 8:35 p.m. one evening and noticed that there were only three available parking spaces in the lot at that time. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Harper confirmed that paddle tennis is becoming a year round sport but that the height of the season and league play begins in October and continues through March, the time of year when other activities at the Club are slow. Chairman Kehr noted that the current views through the parking lot to the back of the clubhouse do not present a good impression for visitors. She noted that at night in the winter, during the peak season for paddle tennis, it is difficult to find the parking lot on Knollwood Lane much less direct someone to another lot once they arrive and find that it is full. She suggested that thicker plantings be considered along Knollwood Lane to improve the overall appearance of the area for visitors and neighbors including evergreens to screen the area during winter months. She stated that unless a valet station is located at the paddle courts, it may be difficult to direct members to the other parking lots when the closest lot is full. She noted that with respect to Mr. Bartlett’s letter it is important to note that he subdivided his property knowing the existing conditions on the site however, she stated that the Board encourages petitioners to work with neighbors to try to address concerns. She acknowledged that what occurs in this area of the Club now is a tight fit and encouraged looking at ways to improve upon the existing conditions. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Mr. Basconi introduced himself as an attorney speaking on behalf of Mr. Bartlett, the owner of the two neighboring properties. He stated that Mr. Bartlett is very interested in this petition, but was unable to attend the meeting. He noted that Mr. Bartlett submitted a letter to the Board. He noted that Mr. Bartlett expressed concern about the lack of maintenance occurring in the area currently, the constant parking of vehicles along Knollwood Lane and the crowding in the parking lot. He stated that significant landscape screening is needed to minimize the light and noise impacts from the courts on the neighboring property owners. He stated that Mr. Bartlett Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 8 believes that the addition of a fourth court and the continued unkept conditions of the area will have a significant monetary impact on the two properties in which he has invested. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Harper stated that the construction period for the paddle court is expected to be about two weeks. Chairman Kehr stated that the petition needs to be strengthened by developing a clear parking plan and a stronger landscape plan. She noted that the tightness of the site now requires that further thought be given to solving the issues before the expansion can be approved. Board member Culbertson agreed stating that the addition of the fourth court may be workable if the parking, lighting and landscaping issues can be addressed. He stated that a strong and better defined parking strategy is needed to practically handle the parking at this location. He asked that consideration be given to a 10 p.m. shut down time rather than 11 p.m. noting that it may be difficult to have different time limitations at two Clubs in the community. Chairman Kehr observed that the situations of the Winter Club and the Knollwood Club are different noting that the Knollwood Club paddle courts meet the setbacks required for residential lots and impact only a very limited number of properties. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that she believes that the current Special Use Permit allows paddle play until 11:00 p.m. at the Knollwood Club. Board member Culbertson stated that is it reasonable to expect the Club to maintain the landscaping along Knollwood Lane noting that it is a private road and that normally maintaining that area is the responsibility of the adjacent property owners. He stated that he is interested in finding a way to approve the project. Board member Ciccarelli agreed that the parking and landscaping needs to be addressed in more detail. He suggested consideration of possible alternative locations for the garbage area noting that the current location is not ideal adding that if it could be moved, there may be room for additional parking in the lot. Board member Dixon suggested that the detailed issues raised could be addressed in a revised landscape plan noting that the current plan was just presented and needs study and enhancement. He asked the Knollwood Club representatives to work with Mr. Bartlett in the spirit of neighborly cooperation in an effort to agree upon an acceptable landscape plan. Chairman Kehr recognized Mr. Barconi who requested the opportunity to make a final comment. He asked whether a restriction could be placed on the Club to require that at times when all four courts are not in use, play occur on the internal courts, those furthest away from Knollwood Lane, rather than on the new court. Board member Christoff made a motion to continue the petition to allow the petitioner to address the issues raised by revisiting the parking and landscaping plans and policies and the other items raised by the Board members. . Board member Dixon observed that there is a spirit of support for this project with further Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 9 cooperative efforts between the various parties. The motion was seconded by Board member Culbertson and it was unanimously approved by all members present. 5. 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 Chairman Kehr asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Dixon stated that he is recusing himself from this petition due fact that his brother lives adjacent to the Winter Club and because his family belongs to the Club. Board member Dixon left the Council Chamber. Chairman Kehr swore in all those intending to speak on this petition and invited a presentation from the petitioner. The President of the Winter Club Geoff Surkamer, introduced the project and offered opening comments. He stated a deep appreciation for the challenges, intent and focus of the Board. He stated that the Winter Club is seeking approval of a modification to the Special Use Permit to allow a neighboring property, owned by the Club, to be incorporated into the Club boundaries and to allow the addition of a fourth paddle court. He stated that the request for the court is based on the increased interest in paddle by Club members. He stated that the level of interest in paddle has surpassed the current facilities. He added that the Club is aware of issues that need to be addressed in response to neighbors’ concerns. He stated that at this time, the Club is seeking guidance and ultimately approval from the Board. Mr. Witmer, member of the Winter Club, architect and paddle player, noted that this project has to do with planning, fitting into the neighborhood and co-existing. He reviewed the existing site plan noting the property proposed for incorporation into the Club boundaries. He noted the areas where activities change from summer to winter, in particular the tennis and hockey areas. He pointed out the two residences owned by the Club located just outside the Club boundary. He reviewed the proposed site plan noting the proposed location of a fourth paddle court aligned with the other three courts. He stated that to allow the new court in the proposed location, the existing parking lot will shift 34 feet to the south. He stated that the existing curb cut will also shift slightly. He stated that additional landscaping is proposed to fill in existing holes along the streetscape on Wisconsin, both higher and lower vegetation. He discussed the existing house which is proposed for inclusion in the Club boundaries noting that this will provide space for a walk-in cooler to be constructed outside the kitchen to allow more space inside the kitchen. He added that the paved surface on the single family lot will be used for employee parking by opening up the fence. He stated that no additional asphalt is proposed. He reviewed the proposed landscape plan noting the trees and vegetation that will be retained. He stated that the open stockade fence south of the curb cut on Wisconsin Avenue will remain at the request of the neighbors to continue the sense of openness in the neighborhood. He stated that the solid fence, Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 10 to the northeast of the curb cut on Wisconsin Avenue, will be maintained. He stated that along with the shift of the curb cut, the sign will be relocated and more landscaping will be added to screen the new court. He presented a rendering showing the proposed Wisconsin Avenue streetscape view after completion of the proposed project. He discussed lighting stating that the existing courts have up to date fixtures that direct lighting downward and that eight new lights will be added to the new court using the same type of fixtures. He stated that the Winter Club faces many of the same issues as the Knollwood Club with the addition of the fact that the Winter Club is located in an historic district. He reviewed the parking on the site noting that in the winter, 100 spaces are added because the tennis courts off of Sheridan Road are used for parking. He stated that with the new plan, policies will be in place to address parking issues. Rich Massa, Club Manager, stated that the Club has strong traditions and is looking to develop the best policies and procedures for handling problems that have occurred over time after listening to all parties. He acknowledged that there are issues and stated that the Club is trying to come up with solutions. He offered a written document of suggested policies and procedures to the Board. At the request of Chairman Kehr, he read from the document he handed out noting that in the summer season, Club staff parks in the City lot on McKinley Road. He reviewed the use of the lots on the site noting that at peak times, the ball fields and the Church of the Holy Spirit site are used for parking. He stated that in the winter, the City lot is also used by staff. He reviewed the use of the on site lots stating that when lots are full, employees will be on site to block them off to prevent overcrowding. He stated that the tennis courts on Sheridan Road are used for parking in the winter providing a significant number of spaces for overflow activities. He explained that for a few large events, valet parking is offered and the Church of the Holy Spirit parking lot is used. He stated that no on street parking is permitted. Ms. Czerniak reviewed the request before the Commission noting that an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit is requested to allow the addition of a paddle court, shifting of a parking lot and the incorporation of one residential property into the Club boundaries for use as employee parking and space for a free standing walk-in cooler. She stated that in general, the issues with this petition are similar to those discussed with the last petition presented by the Knollwood Club. She noted some distinctions between the two. She noted that the existing Special Use Permit for the Winter Club, which was amended in 1991 to allow a third paddle court, includes a condition of approval which states the Club will not request permission to construct a fourth paddle court unless a substantial change in facts or circumstances occurs. She stated since this condition is part of the Ordinance approving the previous Special Use Permit, it must be considered carefully and is a threshold issue for this petition. She stated that the Board must be satisfied that the evidence submitted meets the test established by the condition. She noted that beyond the threshold issue, the issues are similar to those of the Knollwood Club; lights, noise, traffic and level of activity. She noted that unlike the Knollwood Club, the Winter Club is completely surrounded by single family residences and is located on public streets. She stated that establishing and maintaining adequate perimeter buffers and streetscape treatments play a key role in assuring compatibility with surrounding uses. She noted that in the past, at the Club, there have been some problems with enforcement in the eyes of neighboring property owners. She stated that the challenge with this petition is how to make the current use of the site more compatible and to consider how changes or expansion can occur in a manner that is respectful of the existing neighborhood. She reviewed the recommendation in the staff report which suggests that the Board discuss the fundamental issue as identified and challenge the Club to look at alternative site plans and opportunities to shift the court away from the property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 11 She noted that the court, as proposed, encroaches into the required setback along Wisconsin Avenue. She noted that in coming forward with this type of request, the petitioner and Board should consider how current issues can be addressed, perhaps in exchange for granting some additional approvals. She discussed the request to incorporate the small property into the boundaries of the Club. She noted that the property is a lot-in-depth and as a result, has no street frontage. She commented that this particular property appears to already be meshed into the Club. She explained that the request is to incorporate the property into the Club boundary noting that today, it is used as a single family residence as housing for a Club employee. She stated that based on the plans submitted, the existing paved area on the site would not be enlarged but would be used as is for Club employee parking. She suggested that if approved, a condition might require that if the pavement is expanded in the future, significant landscape buffers should be required to prevent any further encroachment or impacts on neighboring properties and to avoid future conflicts. She noted that two letters were received and noted that a four calls were received from neighboring property owners who, because of the nature of the Club, and because in some cases their friends or families are members, they are reluctant to speak publicly. She noted that she emphasized that their direct testimony would be most effective, but agreed to relay their concerns to the Board. She noted that the neighbors stated that currently, the Club is not a good neighbor noting lack of maintenance, failure to provide a significant buffer, impacts on parkways, lighting, noise and parking impacts. She noted that based on a staff review, the past approvals for the Club do not appear to authorize exterior loud speakers. She noted that the callers expressed general concerns about existing conditions and about how increasing the facilities could further impact the neighborhood. Chairman Kehr stated for the record that the letter received from a neighbor, Mr. Fellows, identifies a number of concerns, some similar to the concerns raised in the Knollwood Club discussion, and others relating directly to this neighborhood. She noted that another letter was received from a neighbor, Mr. Lansing, stating general support for the Club, but noting the occasional impacts of the loud speaker on the neighborhood. She noted that Mr. Lansing stated however that the Winter Club is a wonderful part of the neighborhood. In response to questions from Board member Christoff about changes that have occurred in the area, Ms. Czerniak stated that this is an established neighborhood. She stated that a number of homes have been renovated over the years and investments have been made in properties in the area. She confirmed that the road system in the neighborhood has been in place for many years. Board member Christoff stated that there is a problem with the petitioner’s request because it does not address the language in the Special Use Permit. He stated that no evidence has been presented demonstrating a substantial change in facts or conditions. In response to questions from Board member Christoff, Mr. Witmer explained that paddle began at the Winter Club in 1976 with 20 members. He stated that in 1991, the time of the last Special Use Permit amendment and the request for the third court, 100 members were playing paddle and today, 194 members are playing paddle. He stated that the request for the fourth court is based on the unique aspect of how paddle is played which makes a fourth court important. He noted that other clubs on the North Shore have four courts, not five courts, but four. He stated that these facts illustrate a substantial change has occurred. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 12 In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that her sense from reviewing the record of the 1991 approvals is that there were concerns from neighbors at that time about the intensification of use of the Club and that the condition relating to a fourth court was a response to those concerns. She noted that the addition of paddle tennis made the Winter Club more of an adult club, rather than a children’s club, as originally established. She stated that the record does not specify what the significant change of facts or circumstances must be. Board member Culbertson stated that if the intent of the condition was to protect the neighborhood from increased activity at the Club, the facts presented make the case that activity has increased as the neighbors feared. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Witmer explained that the difference between three courts and four courts is that the fourth court will allow play to be completed faster. He stated that a fourth court will not bring more players on to the site. Board member Culbertson observed that it may be that at some point, a fourth court creates more court time and allows additional players to participate. Board member Christoff stated that if the answer is that the substantial change that has occurred is more players, then in the future, the same justification could be used to support a fifth court. He stated that in his opinion, an increase in participation and demand for more courts does not meet the condition of the Special Use Permit. Board member Culbertson agreed but offered that there might be arguments that could be made such as expanding the amount of property, enhancing the landscape perimeter of the entire property, or other measures that the Club is taking to improve its compatibility with the neighborhood by reducing noise, minimizing lighting impacts or alleviating parking and traffic impacts. He stated that just an increase in the amount of paddle players does not satisfy the condition. Board member Ciccarelli noted that although the Club is the “Winter Club”, there are a quite a few summer activities. He asked for information on the levels of activity at different times and how the activity, noise and traffic are handled. He noted that there appears to be a great deal going on in this residential neighborhood. Mr. Massa noted that the when the Winter Club was established there was a toboggan run and from that time, the Club has evolved into a Club with a love of the paddle tennis resulting in an increase in the number of programs for adults in addition to the programs for children. He noted that over the years, the membership levels and the interest levels in various activities has fluctuated. He stated that today, the Club is trying to address the current demands. Board member Culbertson reiterated that the condition from the 1991 Ordinance is the threshold issue that must be addressed. Chairman Kehr noted that this discussion seems to be focused on the number of paddle players but noted that information on the number of participants and level of intensity of other activities must also be considered to understand the overall impacts of the Club. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 13 In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak agreed to review the files of the 1991 approvals and provide the Board with any relevant parts of the record. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Witmer reviewed the various parking areas on the Club property noting that in the winter the two tennis courts are converted into parking lots and are accessed off of Sheridan Road. He noted that the basketball court becomes the hockey rink in the winter, but can be used for parking along with the baseball field in the summer if needed. Board member Ciccarelli stated that the number of parking spaces available on the Club property seems greatly exaggerated noting how the activity areas would be limited by the parking as described. He noted that it would be difficult to park 100 cars on the tennis court noting that it is not striped. He stated that valet parking may be able to achieve a higher number of cars parked in that area. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Massa stated that sometimes cars on the site are valet parked. He noted that if over flow space is needed, cars are parked at the Church of the Holy Spirit. He addressed Chairman Kehr stating that hockey club participation is down because of the travel programs that are available. He stated that the Club’s program is mainly for younger children and at its peak had 125 participants but today, has a participation rate of 109. He noted that a few years ago the hockey participation level was at 80. He pointed out that in the past; squash had a higher level of participation than it does today. He explained that today, the Club has a larger number of members of older ages than in the past. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Witmer reviewed the proposed shift for the curb cut. He stated that the pedestrian sidewalk and gate on Wisconsin Avenue could be replaced but noted that the curb cut is wide enough to accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians since there are few pedestrians that use that entrance. He confirmed that there are “no parking” signs on the parkway along Wisconsin Avenue and noted that boulders have been placed along the parkway to prevent parking. He discussed the location of the walk-in cooler and confirmed that the dumpsters will remain at the present location. He explained that currently, the 936 Sheridan Road house is accessed by a driveway from Sheridan Road. He explained that with the current proposal, the property will be accessed from the Club property for employee parking. He confirmed that a north/south fence will be constructed to prohibit use of the existing driveway. In response to a question from Board member Ciccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Board could separate the issues that are part of this petition but she suggested that rather than considering the components of the petition incrementally, it might be good to comprehensively consider the impacts of the Club on the neighborhood. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Witmer acknowledged that the two residential properties have historic significance. He noted that the Club Manager lives in the house on the property that is proposed for incorporation into the Club. He stated that given the property’s current use, the property is really already a part of the Club. He stated that the other property is rented and stated that the Club has no other plans for the property but stated hesitation in committing to future use to avoid the problem now being faced with the 1991 approvals. He Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 14 stated however if changes are proposed for the use of the front property, approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Historic Preservation Commission will be needed. Chairman Kehr stated that in her experience, parking at the Club is difficult in the winter due to the snow banks. She added that it is difficult to negotiate the drop off circle. She acknowledged that the Club is a wonderful community facility but noted that due to the various activities including birthday parties, paddle tennis, hockey and other activities, there can be a great deal going on at the site. She stated that this is a very different proposal than the Knollwood Club due to the surrounding neighborhood and the prior approvals that were granted. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that in general, the Code does not permit amplified sound outside of buildings. She noted that based on her review, the previous approvals do not specifically authorize outdoor amplified sound at the Winter Club. In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Witmer stated that the loud speakers support the hockey rink noting that the rink was in existence since the 40’s and 50’s. He noted that the College played at the Club as well as the high school and amplification was necessary to call the game. He stated that the Club has had discussions about relocating the loud speakers to make the noise less intense for neighbors. He confirmed that there are no speakers on the paddle courts. In response to questions from the Board, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that addressing the loud speakers as part of the requested amendment to the Special Use Permit would be appropriate. Chairman Kehr commented that the Club is a very intensive use in a residential neighborhood but acknowledged that the Club is part of the fabric of the community and part of the neighborhood. She stated that the use of the Club appears to have intensified over time not just in terms of paddle tennis, but in general. She noted that the use of the Club may be too intense now simply because too many activities are occurring in a small space. She asked for information comparing the overall activities occurring at the Club now and in 1991. Chairman Kehr invited public testimony. Liz Brandel, 1020 N. Sheridan Road, stated that she lives two houses south of the Club. She stated that during special events, the noise carries over to her property and interferes with use of her property. She stated support for the proposed landscaping on Wisconsin Avenue but noted the poorly maintained and shabby landscaping on Sheridan Road. She expressed concern about the current and future traffic flow noting that now there are times when members use driveways of homes in the area to turn around when entering or exiting the Club because left turns are limited or difficult. She stated that she would like to understand the potential impacts on the neighborhood of increased usage of the Club and how traffic will be managed. Fred Fellows, 440 E. Wisconsin Avenue, stated that he lives directly across the street from the Winter Club. He stated that he does not dislike the Club or the members noting that his family belongs to the Club. He stated that he is trying to accomplish something prudent, fair and reasonable. He stated that this neighborhood is historic and has a unique charm and character. He stated that as a neighbor, he appreciates the energy of the Club and acknowledged that he is fortunate that his property provides its own good buffer from the Club. He stated that he planted 18 trees in the parkway over the past year and a half. He noted that the basis of zoning is to Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 15 respect other properties and he reiterated that this is a residential neighborhood. He noted that the Winter Club started off as a children’s’ club and is much more than that today. He stated his opinion that the neighborhood should remain residential in character commenting that if the Club keeps expanding, this will no longer be a residential neighborhood. He stated that is it is not unreasonable to ask the Club to stop taking away from the neighborhood and not giving something back. He asked that the hours of operation and level of activities be reconsidered. He stated that there should be a consequence if the conditions are not met. He stated that consideration needs to be given to what level of activity is appropriate in this neighborhood. He concluded stating that initially, the Winter Club did not generate intense traffic on Wisconsin Avenue, but today it does due to the curb cut and parking lot access from Wisconsin Avenue. He stated that there should be no access to the Club from Wisconsin Avenue. Chairman Kehr invited petitioner rebuttal to public testimony. Mr. Witmer stated that the Winter Club has been at this location since 1902 and is part of the fabric of Lake Forest and is not going away. Through the long history of the Club, there have always been conflicts with neighbors. He suggested that other locations can be explored for the paddle courts noting that if the two houses are torn down, the courts could be relocated to the Sheridan Road side of the property. He questioned whether that would be an improvement. Chairman Kehr asked that information be provided to the Board comparing the activities and participation levels in 1991 to the present. Board member Christoff acknowledged that the Club has a great deal of history but noted that the City has a long history too. He stated that when an Ordinance is passed, it was passed for a reason and means something. He noted that this Ordinance has been on the books for 20 years and that the issue presented must be addressed. Mr. Witmer suggested that the Club do further research and explore options for addressing the issues that were raised in a cohesive way. He stated that if the fundamental issue of the fourth court cannot be addressed, the petition could be split up to allow the incorporation of the house into the Club property to allow for employee parking and the location of the cooler to proceed. Board member Ciccarelli suggested that in the Club’s desire to be a good neighbor, the concerns raised by the neighbors should be considered going forward. He suggested that the issues considered should include noise, hours of operation and traffic patterns. Board member Culbertson reiterated that the fundamental issue needs to be addressed to demonstrate that an adequate “substantial change” has occurred. He suggested that the petitioner come back with a well-reasoned argument, supported by evidence that demonstrates that the condition is satisfied. He stated that it is not enough to say there are more paddle players. He reviewed the minutes from the June 10, 1991, Plan Commission noting that at that time, the Club Manager stated that having more than three courts invites league and tournament play which is not in the Club’s interest based on the experiences of other clubs. He encouraged the petitioners to review the record of the last meeting. Chairman Kehr suggested that staff review the Ordinance with the City Attorney to understand how the condition might be addressed. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes August 30, 2012 Page 16 Board member Christoff made a motion to continue the petition pending further information from the Club and input from the City Attorney to assist the Board in understanding how the petition complies, or does not comply with the condition from the 1991 approvals. He incorporated into the motion the Board’s direction to work with the neighbors to understand their ongoing concerns and explore ways they might be addressed. He added that additional information is needed from the Club on the different activities that take place at the Club, levels of participation and use of the Club in 1991 and today. He encouraged the Club to fully address the condition from the 1991 approval. The motion was seconded by Board member Ciccarelli and was approved by all members present. OTHER ITEMS 6. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There was no additional public testimony. 7. Additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development