Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/02/27 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the February 27, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, February 27, 2012, at 6:00 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 Richard Christoff, Jay Kennedy, Robert Franksen, Lloyd Culbertson, Sam Ciccarelli and Stewart Dixon Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: None Staff present: Marlo Del Percio, City Attorney, Megan C. O’Neill, 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 to introduce themselves. 2. Executive Session: The Board will go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation, considering the 27 W. Onwentsia Road appeal and reviewing the minutes of a previous Executive Session. Chairman Kehr asked for a motion to go into Executive Session. Board member Franksen made a motion to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss pending litigation, the 27 W. Onwentsia Road appeal and to review minutes of a previous Executive Session. Board member Culbertson seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved by the members of the Board present as noted above. The Board members left the Council Chambers and convened in Executive Session. The Board reconvened in open session at 6:37 p.m. 3. Approval of the minutes of the January 23, 2012 regular meeting. The minutes of the regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 23, 2012 were approved as submitted. The minutes of the Executive Session of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on January 23, 2012 were approved as submitted. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 2 4. Action: The Board will consider action on an appeal of the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a single family residence and other structures on property addresses as 27 W. Onwentsia Road. The appeal was heard at the January 23, 2012 meeting. Chairman Kehr stated that the appeal of the issuance of a building permit for construction of a new house at 27 W. Onwentsia Road was heard at January meeting. She stated that the Board deliberated on the appeal and is prepared to issue a written decision affirming the issuance of the building permit. She asked for a motion to approve the written decision on the appeal. Board member Franksen made a motion to affirm the issuance of the building permit and to deny the appeal. Board member Ciccarelli seconded the motion and it was approved by a roll call vote with all Board members present as noted above voting aye. In response to questions from Leonard Shifflett, Quarles and Brady LLP, on behalf of Kerry Friedman, Chairman Kehr stated that the Board is not taking additional oral arguments at this time. In response to Mr. Shifflett’s question, Ms. Del Percio confirmed that the response to the motion received by the City from Mr. Shifflett earlier in the day is included in the written Order just approved by the Board. She stated that a copy of the written Order will be available in a short time, later in the evening. Ms. Del Percio left the meeting. 5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for approval of a variance from the lot-in-depth zoning requirements to allow construction of an addition to a residence at 395 Ahwahnee Road. Owners: Mike and Jackie Winn Representative: Michael Breseman, architect Chairman Kehr asked for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none, she swore in all those intending to speak on this matter and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Breseman introduced the petition and provided a history of the property noting the house was building in the 1950’s and that Jerome Cerny was the original architect. He described the scope of work proposed noting the intent to connect the existing house to the existing detached garage. He stated that the architectural details will match the existing structures pointing out the flat roof which minimizes the appearance of the addition. He stated that the addition is subservient to the existing structure and will be painted brick to blend with the existing house. He stated that the property is zoned R-4 but is smaller than the minimum lot size for that district. He added that the original home and the garage are both non-conforming to current setback requirements. He reviewed the distances between the existing structures and the property line and discussed the location of the proposed addition. He noted that the parcel is a lot-in-depth and as a result, has greater setback requirements than a standard lot. He stated that alternative locations for the addition were explored and that the proposed location addition is the least Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 3 intrusive to the neighbors. He stated that the addition connects the house and provides an area for pool house functions. He stated that the lot is heavily wooded and presented photographs. He added that there is a 6-foot tall stockade fence that further screens the property from surrounding lots. He stated that the property is unique and therefore, does not create a precedent for future requests. He showed images of the existing structures and a rendering of the proposed project. He showed elevations noting the small scope of this project and its location in between the existing structures. Ms. O’Neill provided background on lots-in-depth noting that a 50-foot setback is required on all side. She stated that the property is accessed by a private drive. She noted that this project proposes an addition that would link the existing house and garage noting that the addition will be internal to the existing structures. She provided a brief history of the property noting that this is a unique request. She corrected an error in the staff report noting the correct date for the Historic Preservation Commission consideration of the addition with a building scale variance. In response to a question from Board member Kennedy, Mr. Breseman commented on the flat roof proposed for the addition noting that a gable roof would impact the existing windows on the second floor and stated the intent to keep the addition small and simple. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. O’Neill stated that there is no record of a previous variance for the existing structures on the lot. She confirmed that a permit was issued for the detached garage and large addition and confirmed that the existing buildings appear to be consistent with the permit documents. Ms. Czerniak suggested that there may have been an error in interpretation of the setbacks when the garage was built. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she invited final questions or comments from the Board. Board member Franksen noted that the limited visibility of the proposed addition minimizes any impact on neighboring properties. Board member Kennedy agreed with the comments of Board member Franksen. In response to a question from Chairman Kehr, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that no letters or contacts from the public were received on this request. Board member Franksen made a motion to recommend approval of the variance as presented to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Board member Kennedy and it was unanimously approved by the Board. The Board took a five minute recess to review the model presented by the petitioner for the next agenda item. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 4 6. Public hearing and Action: Consideration of a request for an amendment to a Special Use Permit for Lake Forest College to allow replacement of an existing 60-bed Student Residence Hall with a new 235-bed Student Residence Hall on South Campus. Owner: Lake Forest College Representatives: Stephen Schutt, President, Lake Forest College Jim Curtain, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board members for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Board member Dixon stated that a family member is involved as a Trustee on a Board for Lake Forest College but noted that involvement would not affect his ability to objectively consider this petition. Chairman Kehr swore in all those intending to speak on this petition. Lake Forest College President Stephen Schutt introduced the petition and provided some background on the College. He noted that to remain competitive with similar Colleges, the College plans to incrementally increase student enrollment over the next few years. He stated that a new student residence hall, with an additional 175 beds is proposed. He stated that the College has not constructed a new residence hall in over 45 years. He stated that the new residence hall will be on South Campus, the largest and most vibrant residential area on the campus and the location of the recently completed Sports and Recreation Center. He reviewed the various uses on South Campus which support the residential uses in this area. He added that the existing Moore Hall is proposed for demolition and explained that the new dorm will be built partially in the footprint of the existing dorm. He noted that Moore Hall does not provide the living environment desired by students today. He stated that the new residence hall will not exceed the height of Moore Hall as it exists today. He introduced the project team. He concluded noted that the College hosted a public meeting to discuss this project with the neighbors and will continue to strive to be a good neighbor. Mr. Curtin, architect representing the project, reviewed the existing conditions on the site and the surrounding area. He showed images of Moore Hall noting that it is a 4-1/2 story building with 60 beds. He pointed out Hixon Hall, the theater that will remain. He reviewed the location of the new residence hall and the pedestrian spine that runs the full length of the Campus. He reviewed the location of the proposed residence hall pointing out that it will extend further to the north than the existing building to provided more space to house additional students. He noted that the new building is intended to nestle in with the other residence halls and complete the quad area. He noted that there is significant vegetation on the Campus and at the perimeter of the Campus. He reviewed the proposed building elevations noting the decorative brickwork. He stated that the design will be compatible with the other buildings in the area. He stated that the roof top mechanicals will be screened from view with a parapet wall. He provided renderings of conceptual streetscape views of the proposed building from Sheridan and Rosemary Roads. He noted the significant distance that the building will be setback from the street. He stated that the new building will generally replicate the mass of the existing structures on South Campus. He also described the pedestrian spine noting how it relates to the student residence buildings and the quad area. He encouraged the Board to review the massing model that is presented from the perspective of a pedestrian and not only from above. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Gewalt, principal Gewalt and Hamilton Engineering, reviewed the engineering and grading plan and noted the drainage patterns on the site. He stated that since there will be some additional impervious surface as a result of this project, some of on-site detention is required. He stated that rather than construct a standard detention pond, a rain garden/bioswale stormwater management area is proposed. He stated that the stormwater management area will be planted with native plants which will mitigate the runoff and be aesthetically pleasing. He noted that a small pipe will restricted the release of storm water from the site into the sewer in Sheridan Road. He noted that a new parking area is proposed as part of the project in an area previously used for construction parking. He stated that his firm conducted a parking study of the entire Campus and confirmed that adequate parking is available however; policies could be put in place to allow the available spaces to be better utilized. He noted that the study also considered weekend parking during sporting events. He noted that on one weekend, during sports events, the College experimented with relocation of student vehicles from South to Middle Campus noting that the experiment worked well to provide additional space for event parking on South Campus and noted that the College will put this practice into use on a regular basis. Mr. Miller, landscape architect for the College, provided an overview of the natural landscape theme for the overall Campus and noted the reforestation plan for the Campus which was put in place several years ago to be implemented on an ongoing basis. He stated that the goal of the College it so preserve the existing character of vegetation on the Campus. He noted the ravines and stands of Oaks that characterize the Campus. He stated that the landscape themes for the Campus so do not focus on foundation plantings or planting beds, but consider broader landscape themes. He stated that the general site proposed for the new residence hall is screened by various mature trees. He noted the site restrictions due to the City water main and the playing field which is used regularly by students. He noted that several additional trees are proposed to be planted between the athletic field and the proposed residence hall and reviewed the proposed plantings. Ms. Czerniak described the request before the Board stating that a Special Use Permit is requested to authorize the construction of a new student residence hall on Lake Forest College campus in the R-4 residential zoning district. She provided some background on the Special Use Permit process stating that the majority of the City of Lake Forest is zoned for residential use and that historically the City has used the Special Use Permit process to authorize community institutions such as the College, the Hospital, public and private schools, churches and private clubs. She stated that as these institutions grow and change, new Special Use Permits, or amendments to previously granted Special Use Permits, are required and are considered through the public process. She stated that Lake Forest College predates the Zoning Code and most of the surrounding residential development. She noted that through the years, various Special Use Permits have been granted to the College including one approving a Master Plan for the campus in 2003. She stated that the pedestrian spine now in place on the campus was part of that Master Plan along with the establishment of lighting and signage standards for the entire campus. She stated that the Master Plan identified South Campus as a primary area for student residence halls noting that the present request is consistent with that earlier approval. She summarized that the Board’s purview is to determine whether the proposed project meets the criteria for a Special Use Permit and in doing so, consider various elements of the project including the siting and configuration of the proposed building, the adequacy of parking and stormwater management, and the compatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding area and previous approvals for the Campus. She noted that this project will also be reviewed by the Building Review Board Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 6 with a focus on architectural design and exterior materials. She stated any new lighting and signage will be consistent with the previously approved standards for the Campus. She stated that the recommendations from both the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Building Review Board will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration and action. She reviewed the proposed new residence hall noting that the general location is appropriate noting that it supports and strengthens the residential quad and pedestrian spine concepts. She suggested however that further study of the exact alignment of the building footprint may be beneficial noting the proximity of the new building as now proposed to Nollen Hall and the potential impact on the Sheridan Road streetscape. She commented on student parking noting that concerns are sometimes received from the surrounding residential neighborhoods about students parking on residential streets on a daily basis. She acknowledged the parking study completed by the College at the request of staff. She stated that the issue of parking on Campus is similar to that in the Central Business District in that there are an adequate number of spaces provided, however, they are not currently used as efficiently and effectively as they might be. She recommended that a parking diagram be developed identifying the users of the different parking areas on the Campus. She suggested that the College give thought to parking policies that minimize parking impacts on adjacent residential streets. She commented on proposed method of managing stormwater on the site and asked for Board input on the proposed rain garden concept. She stated that this approach could provide additional natural landscaping at the perimeter of the Campus and provide educational opportunities. She stated that consideration should be given to light impacts from the new residence hall into the surrounding neighborhoods and public streetscape. She noted that the Building Review Board, rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with evaluating the request for approval of the demolition of Moore Hall adding that City public safety personnel support the proposed demolition given the age, condition and life safety aspects of the existing building. She stated that the staff report includes recommendations for requests for additional information to help the Board, staff and the public fully understand and review the project. She stated that staff recommends that the Board provide direction and input and request additional study and information as appropriate and continue consideration of the petition to allow action at a future meeting. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that the streets west of Sheridan Road near the campus are not signed “no parking.” She stated that the residents prefer that the streets not be signed, but object to daily student parking on the residential streets. She reiterated that there are enough parking spaces on campus to meet student demand. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, President Schutt stated that not all students who live on campus are permitted to have a car campus. He stated that freshmen and sophomores may only have cars on Campus if they are granted a special exception due to a specific hardship. He stated that there are sufficient parking spaces on campus for students living on campus, commuter students, faculty and staff. He stated that policy changes related to parking are being considered which would direct students more pro-actively to park in specific areas on campus. He stated that although it is legal to park on some of the streets around the Campus, the College is working to discourage students from doing so. In response to a question from Board member Franksen, Ms. Czerniak clarified that staff recommends that further study be done on the relationship of the new residence hall to Nollen Hall noting that the relationship between the two buildings will be important to the success of the project. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 7 In response to a question from Board member Franksen, Mr. Curtin reviewed the height of the proposed building noting that it is 2 feet taller than Moore Hall as it exists today. He pointed out that Nollen Hall was built with lower ceiling heights than the 8’6” ceiling height proposed in the new building. He pointed out that Moore Hall is a very narrow building and confirmed that the new building will be about three times the size of the existing building. Board member Franksen reviewed the criteria that must be considered for Special Use Permits. In response to questions from Board member Franksen, President Schutt agreed that with the addition of beds on the Campus, this project is expected to have a positive impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods since it will allow all residential students to be accommodated on the Campus. He stated that as a result, fewer students are expected to seek residential options off-campus. He stated that with the exception of commuting students, all first and second year students are required to live on campus. He discussed the time line for the project stating that it is hoped that demolition of Moore Hall will begin shortly after school ends in May, 2012 with expected occupancy of the new residence hall in fall of 2013. In response to a question from Board member Kennedy, President Schutt explained that the proposed additional parking area is already in use as a temporary lot left over from the construction of the Sports Center. He stated that with this request, the parking lot will be configured as a permanent lot. He stated over the long term, there may be three or four other small areas on campus that may be considered for additional parking as part of a future project which would require a separate approval process. He confirmed that the parking lot now proposed will be landscaped consistent with the natural landscape theme found throughout the campus. He confirmed that managing stormwater through a rain garden/bioswale approach is preferred for functional, aesthetic, environmental and educational reasons. In response to a question from Board member Kennedy, Ms. Czerniak explained that as a matter of standard practice, the City does not support underground detention of stormwater noting that surface stormwater management areas add open space and landscaping to the community and result in better water quality. In response to a question from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Curtin clarified that the distance between the proposed residence hall and Nollen Hall is 27 feet at the closest point as currently proposed. He noted that as a result of the angle of the building, the space widens. Chairman Kehr asked that the proximity of the new building to the surrounding buildings be studied further stating that the structures appear to be too close. She noted the importance of assuring that there is adequate screening of the proposed residence hall. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals is reviewing the request because the expansion of a non-residential use, student residence halls, is proposed within a residential zoning district. She confirmed that the overall Master Plan is due for updating and stated that an update is expected to be brought forward in the next couple years after a strategic plan for the College is completed. She confirmed that a future Master Plan will incorporate all of the changes that occurred on the Campus since the last plan and will look forward over a period of five to ten years. She noted that the increase in the size of the building, the increase in student enrollment, the request for a Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 8 height variance, the addition of parking, and a new stormwater management area all contribute to the scope of the project which brings it before the Zoning Board of Appeals for review at this time. She clarified that the Special Use Permit process allows for a public process to occur as the College changes over time. She stated that working with the College and nearby residents to address any issues that come up as a result of the adjacency of the College and residential neighborhoods is an ongoing process. She stated that the City receives good cooperation and communication from the College on a regular basis. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the City historically made a conscience decision to be a primarily residentially zoned community. She stated that institutions are located in residential neighborhoods and the Special Use Permit process is used to formally recognize and authorize the institutions and to assure that they develop and change over time in a manner that is compatible with and respectful of the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the overall community. In response to questions from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Curtis confirmed that the proposed height of the new building is approximately 53 feet and commented on the building configuration. He pointed out that the shorter leg of the building helps to form the student quad area and takes the place of Moore Hall. He stated that the building then follows the line of Hixon Hall and extends to the north. He stated that the shape of the building supports the functions needed in the building. He stated that there is a requirement for 235 beds and the design of the building was developed based on that requirement. He confirmed that alternative locations were studied for the building, but the same building configuration was used at each location. He reviewed the alternative siting options that were considered and offered his comments on the pros and cons of each. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Curtin stated that there is not currently a stormwater management area on the campus other than the natural ravines. He stated that current regulations required that one be developed to support the proposed project. He explained that the area proposed for the stormwater management area was previously the location of a small house and an open area at the south end of the athletic fields. He noted that this area is also adjacent to the main entrance to South Campus. Mr. Gewalt confirmed that the stormwater management area is designed to provide more than the required amount of stormwater detention on the campus. In response to further questions from the Board, President Schutt confirmed that currently, there are sufficient parking spaces on the campus, he stated that the College is taking advantage of the existing temporary parking area, which has worked well, and proposes to establish it as a permanent parking lot as part of this project. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, President Schutt stated that the College is committed to actively managing parking on the campus to assure that it is appropriately and efficiently used. He stated that systems are being developed to direct students to park in specific areas. In response to a question from Board member Christoff, Mr. Greive, Gewalt and Hamilton, confirmed the number of parking spaces on the campus today. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 9 Board member Culbertson noted that he was involved in the Building Review Board consideration of the Sports Center and emphasized the importance of being sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhood. He stated that lighting impacts on the surrounding residential area was a major issue during those discussions. In response to a question from Chairman Kehr, President Schutt stated that the Roberts, Gregory and McClure residence halls each house 120 students and Nollen houses 150 students. In response to a question from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Curtin explained that the proposed residence hall includes services and amenities that support the students and a single building, rather than two distinct buildings, can more efficiently meet student needs. He added that the larger community of students also supports a cohesive student body. In response to questions from Chairman Kehr, Ms. Czerniak stated that to date, staff has not received any comments or concerns from nearby residents. She noted that some residents contacted the City requesting information about the project. She added that the College held an open house for the neighbors providing an opportunity to review the project and talk with College representatives. Board member Franksen noted that he is a neighbor of the College and stated that the College is a good amenity to the community and offers many good opportunities to Lake Forest. He noted that there is an inherent conflict between students renting homes in the surrounding neighborhoods and the character desired by residents of those neighborhoods. He stated that through this project, there appears to be an opportunity to address some of the concerns of the neighborhood. He stated that the Board must consider if the request will have a negative or positive impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. He stated that he is concerned about the adequacy of parking and asked for more information on that topic. He added that parking concerns involve daily parking and not just parking for big events. He suggested that the College complete some further due diligence and return to the Board with further information consistent with the recommendations in the staff report and plan refinements that explain how this project relates to student life and the surrounding neighborhood. Board member Dixon noted that in his opinion, the petition is very close. He acknowledged that some further study is needed but stated that in general, the proposal appears acceptable. Chairman Kehr invited public testimony. Hearing none, she invited final comments from the Board. Board member Franksen reviewed the criteria in the Code for a Special Use Permit noting that in particular, criteria 1, 2 and 3 should be considered and fully addressed. He stated an understanding that the project is important to the College and noted that there is room for improvement in the plan currently presented. Chairman Kehr reviewed the criteria for consideration of Special Use Permits. Board member Culbertson noted that all of the criteria are important. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 27, 2012 Page 10 Board member Christoff stated that the approach to stormwater management is interesting and asked for some additional information on this aspect of the project. Board member Franksen made a motion to continue consideration of the Lake Forest College request to allow further study, refinement and responses to the questions raised by the Board. The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and it was unanimously approved by the Board. OTHER ITEMS 4. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There were no requests to speak on non-agenda items. 5. Additional information from staff. There was no additional information from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine J. Czerniak Director of Community Development