Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2012/04/03 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the April 3, 2012 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Tuesday, April 3, 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 Lloyd Culbertson, Robert Franksen, Jay Kennedy, Stuart Dixon, and Richard Christoff Zoning Board of Appeals members absent: Sam Ciccarelli Staff present: Megan C. O’Neill, Planner and Goran Radovanovic, Planning Intern 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 February 27, 2012 Executive Session and regular meeting. The minutes of the February 27, 2012 Executive Session were approved as submitted. Approval of the minutes from the February 27, 2012 regular meeting was postponed. NEW PETITION 3. 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 the residence at 1137 N. Green Bay Road. Owners: Dean and Mary Sundberg Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Kehr asked the Board to identify any conflicts of interest or ex parte contacts regarding this request. Board member Culbertson noted that he is acquainted with the petitioner but would be able to vote impartially on the matter. Hearing no other declaration of conflict, Chairman Kehr swore in the architect representing the project and invited a presentation from the petitioner. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition noting that there is very little traffic through the subdivision. He reviewed the lot configuration noting that the zoning setback requirements are more restrictive than typical zoning setbacks. He stated that the addition allows for a more accessible home for the owners noting the proposed first floor master suite. He stated that a one car garage addition is also proposed. He stated that the project is in compliance with building scale requirements as well as the height and design criteria. He showed photographs of the neighboring properties noting a detached garage on the property to the north noting that the main Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 3, 2012 Page 2 house is further away. He stated that there is an existing horseshoe driveway. He stated that the existing evergreen screen is a mitigating factor in this request. He stated that the existing fence will be redone and reconnected to the house after the addition. He showed images of the existing home and surrounding properties. He showed a site plan of the proposed project noting the need to reconfigure the driveway to gain access to the new one car garage addition. He stated that the addition is one-story and lower in height than the existing home. He stated that the materials will match the existing condition. He stated that the required setback is 40 feet from the north property line. He stated that at the time it was built, the house complied to zoning setbacks but due to a change in the Zoning Code, a variance is now required for the addition. He commented on the appropriateness of the location of the addition in terms of use and configuration. He stated that it is well screened from the street and neighbors. He stated that this addition will make the home livable for the owners. He showed the proposed elevations. He stated that the existing garage elevation will be pulled forward to accommodate an additional garage bay. He stated that a hipped roof was introduced to lower the massing and minimize the visual impact on the surrounding properties. He stated that the materials will be the same as the existing conditions. He showed a rear elevation noting that the bulk of the addition is located to the back of the house. He stated that the original house has a taller ridge line. He reviewed the setback distances that are requested. He reiterated that there is an evergreen screen between the proposed construction and the property to the north. He asked the Board for consideration of the request. Mr. Radovanovic presented staff comments. He stated that the request is for a one story addition within the lot-in-depth setback requirements. He provided a definition of a lot-in-depth noting the front yard setback requirement for the district is applied to all property lines. He stated that this lot resulted from a subdivision in 1955 noting that the home was built in 1958. He stated that the new house and an addition constructed in 1966 were in compliance with the zoning requirements at that time. He noted that the change to the Zoning Code in 1979 rendered the structure non-conforming. He commented on the tree removal necessary for this addition and stated that a landscape plan showing replacement inches will be required at the time of permit. He noted that proper notice was mailed to the surrounding neighbors and that no correspondence has been received to date. He noted the findings of fact from the staff report in support of the petition. In response to a question from Board member Christoff, Mr. Krasnodebski noted that the garage will be constructed on a slab and the addition is proposed with a crawl space. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Radovanovic noted that a 15-foot side yard setback is typically required in the R3 district. In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Mr. Krasnodebski commented on the tree removal noting that there may be room for a replacement tree in front of the garage addition. He confirmed the spaces that are proposed including a breakfast area, study and master suite. He commented on the flat roof of the porch addition. He noted the decorative railing that helps to integrate the ramp into the structure. He stated that one of the hipped roofs terminates with a flat roof noting the desire to keep the ridgeline low. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes April 3, 2012 Page 3 In response to a question from Board member Culbertson, Ms. O’Neill noted that the City Arborist identified the Silver Maple as a hazard to the property and authorized removal of the tree. In response to a question from Board member Franksen, Mr. Krasnodebski noted the setbacks indicated on the site plan. In response to a question from Chairman Kehr, Mr. Krasnodebski commented on the detached garage on the adjacent property. He stated that he speculates the use above the garage to be storage. He stated that the evergreen trees are located on the adjacent property. He commented on alternatives that were explored for this project to minimize the amount of construction within the setback area. He stated that the addition could be shifted south to conform noting the odd relationship to the existing home and obstruction of views from the existing living spaces. He noted that a conforming addition is long and obtrusive to the existing architecture. He stated that this is the least egregious of the options. He stated that there is an overall increase in impervious surface but noted that the change is minimal. He stated that there is a slight reduction in the asphalt driveway beyond the existing fence line. Chairman Kehr invited public comment. Hearing none, she brought the discussion back to the Board for final comments. Board member Franksen noted that this property has a restrictive setback noting that the property is setback and not visible from a public street. He noted that the request is reasonable. Board member Christoff noted that the neighbor to the north would be the most impacted noting that no correspondence or public testimony was received. He stated that this is a good solution. Board member Franksen made a motion to approve the project as submitted based on the finding in the staff report. Board member Dixon seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. 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 were no additional comments from staff. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Megan C. O’Neill Planner