Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2011/03/24 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the March 24, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Thursday, March 24, 2011, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Zoning Board of Appeals members present: Acting Chairman Daniel Jasica and Board members Angela DeDolph, Sam Ciccarelli and Stewart Dixon Zoning Board of Appeals member absent: Chairman Cardy Davis, Michael Adelman and Rosemary Kehr Staff present: Megan O’Neill, Assistant Planner and Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures. Acting Chairman Jasica opened the meeting and asked the members of the Board to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the January 24, 2011 regular meeting. The minutes of the January 24, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. NEW PETITIONS 3. A request for approval of a variance from the side yard setback requirement to allow construction of an addition at 319 Woodland Road. Owners: Chris and Mary Bauder Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Acting Chairman Jasica swore in all parties intending to speak on this petition. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition and commented that he has worked on this residence in the past. He reviewed photos of the home noting that it is in full conformance with all City requirements with the exception of the area that is the subject of this request. He discussed the west side of the house, the area of the proposed addition. He described the existing side entry porch noting that it will be encapsulated in the addition. He acknowledged a nearby tree, a Siberian Elm, stating the owners’ intent to take measures to assure its preservation. He noted the limited visibility of the area of the proposed addition and pointed out that the proposed addition is stepped back from the existing garage to minimize the encroachment into the required setback area. He discussed the exterior materials noting that they will be in conformance with the rest of the house. He stated that the Historic Preservation Commission has already approved the project. He reviewed a floor plan noting that alternative configurations were considered and Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 24, 2011 Page 2 pointed out that other locations for a mudroom did not make sense. He stated that given the distance from the street and mature landscaping on this site, this project makes sense and meets the criteria for a zoning variance. Ms. O’Neill stated that a setback variance is requested from the west side yard. She confirmed that the project has already received approval from the Historic Preservation Commission. She stated that as part of the study process, the petitioner considered other alternatives, but due to the configuration of the existing home and the layout, the option presented best achieves the petitioner’s goal. She noted that the addition is stepped back from the furthest point of encroachment. She stated that the original home was built in conformance with the zoning then in place. She stated that the zoning was later changed at the initiation of the City, creating the current non-conforming situation. She recommended approval of the petition noting that a landscape plan will be reviewed by staff during the building permit process. She stated staff support for the variance and noted that findings supporting the recommendation are outlined in the staff report. In response to a question from Board member DeDolph, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that the existing fence is six feet in height and will not be impacted during construction. In response to a question from the Board, Ms. O’Neill stated that the required public notice was provided, but no correspondence was received. Action Chairman Jasica invited public comment, hearing none; he invited final comment from the Board. Hearing none, he stated that the request is reasonable and well supported. He invited a motion. Board member DeDolph made a motion to recommend approval of the variance to the City Council based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and it was unanimously approved by the Board. 4. A request for approval of a variance from the rear yard setback requirement to allow the re-construction of the garage at 48 Woodland Road. Owner: Jim Yamamoto Representative: George Svoboda, architect Acting Chairman Jasica asked the Board members for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from the petitioner and swore in all those intending to speak on the petition. Mr. Svoboda introduced the petition. He reviewed a site plan noting that the garage is located 20 feet from the east property line. He noted that the house will be reconstructed with a second floor. He explained that the front yard of the house is located on Green Bay Road and therefore, the garage as it exists today encroaches into the rear yard setback. He noted the intention to keep the garage in its current footprint but noted that some changes may be required and therefore, a Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 24, 2011 Page 3 setback variance is required to allow reconstruction within the current footprint due to the existing encroachment into the required setback. He noted that the garage will have new windows and new brick on the façade. He provided photos of the existing house and the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out the trees proposed for preservation along Green Bay Road. Ms. O’Neill explained that staff struggled with whether this project required a variance, or not. She explained that in an effort to be clear about the intentions for the property, and in recognition of the discussions that have taken place in the past regarding this property, staff determined that it was appropriate to bring this request forward for consideration by the Board. She stated that the property is within the R-2 zoning district and that the required rear yard setback is 35 feet from the east property line. She noted that the proposed increase in the height of the garage as described by the petitioner appears to be within the zoning requirements. She noted that the intent is to preserve the garage in its current footprint with the changes anticipated to only be cosmetic. She noted input from neighbors stating support for retaining the garage in its present configuration and near its present height. She noted that if a detached garage was constructed, it could be closer to the property line, and taller than the existing garage. She noted the trees and vegetation along Green Bay Road and the importance of preserving the wooded streetscape and noted that if the replacement home is shifted to the west, the wooded area would be impacted. She explained that retaining the garage in its present location could help to avoid encroachment into the wooded area. She stated that Building Review Board review and approval of this project is required and that any action by the Zoning Board of Appeals would be conditioned on Building Review Board approval. She stated that findings are included in the staff report in support of the variance request. In response to a question from Board member DeDolph, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the intention is to retain the garage in generally its present form. She noted however that due to the reconstruction of the house, some reconstruction of structural members may need to occur. She stated that there would be no change to the footprint of the garage and no further extension into the setback area. Chairman Jasica invited public comment. Mr. Krasnodebski, 910 N. Green Bay Road, noted that he lives across the street and that the replacement house will be visible from his property. He stated that he cannot support the project in its present form from a design perspective. He noted that the house will be almost a complete demolition and therefore, should be required to conform to the setbacks. He stated that the home is in an appropriate location as proposed, but suggested that the project could benefit from a review of alternatives to the present proposal. He stated that there are significant design issues and asked that the Building Review Board review the request before the Zoning Board of Appeals takes action on this request. He expressed support for improving the property commenting that the property has been in disrepair for a number of years. Roger Lee, the petitioner’s son, stated the intent to improve, not demolish, the home. He stated that his family has been in the construction business for many years. He stated that he respectfully disagrees with the comments of Mr. Krasnodebski noting that the neighborhood has Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 24, 2011 Page 4 changed significantly and the project as proposed is an attempt to improve the ranch home to make it more in keeping with the neighborhood. In response to questions from Acting Chairman Jasica, Ms. O’Neill stated that the intent of this project as explained by the petitioner is to retain the foundation in its present location. She stated that alternatives that conform to the zoning setback requirements could be considered. She agreed that additional work on the design of this project is needed. She stated that the item is scheduled for review by the Building Review Board at the April meeting. She noted that staff tries to avoid petitions moving back and forth between different Boards and as a result, the discussion of the zoning variance is being presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals first to get a sense of whether a variance would be supported prior to presenting the project to the Building Review Board. In response to a question from Board member Dixon, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the neighbor to the east contacted staff with questions about the petition. She stated that a primary concern was that the garage not be located any closer to the property line than the existing garage. She noted that another call was received from the neighbor across the street on Green Bay Road raising concerns about the design and suggesting that options that conform to the zoning requirements should be explored. In response to a question from Board member Cicarelli, Ms. O’Neill confirmed that the Building Review Board will review this project. She stated that the “cosmetics” of the garage may change, but as presented, the massing and footprint would not change. She confirmed if the massing, footprint or location of the garage changes in a manner that changes the scope of the variance, this matter would be returned to the Zoning Board of Appeals for further review. In response to a question from Acting Chairman Jasica, Ms. O’Neill stated that the Building Review Board looks at the massing, the architectural detailing and the overall composition of the project. Ms. Czerniak clarified that approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals would not require the Building Review Board to act in any particular way. She stated that the Building Review Board would need to make a determination that the demolition is warranted and the replacement structure is appropriate in order to approve the project. She reiterated that it is difficult to decide which Board should review a project first in situations like this one. Board member Dixon stated that architectural design is not the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals and encouraged the Board to focus on the variance aspect of the request. He stated that aesthetics are a different discussion and the appropriate Board will review and take appropriate action on the design aspects of the project. Board member DeDolph commented that the variance itself appears to be justified. Board member Cicarelli concurred with the comments of other Board members. Acting Chairman Jasica agreed that the petition appears to meet the requirements for a variance. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes March 24, 2011 Page 5 He acknowledged that there are issues with respect to the design and noted that the Building Review Board will follow the appropriate process to address any design issues. Board member Ciccarelli made a motion to recommend approval of the variance to the City Council based on the findings in the staff report. The motion was seconded by Board member DeDolph and it was unanimously approved by the Board. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There were no additional comments from the public on non-agenda items. 6. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak distributed an update on the Open Meetings Act prepared by the City Attorney for the City Council. She stated that the update is being distributed to all Boards and Commissions for information. Acting Chairman Jasica noted that due to a lack of agenda items, there may not be an April meeting. He thanked staff and the other Board members noting that he enjoyed working with everyone during his time on the Board. Board member Dixon noted that all of the outgoing Board members will be missed. Ms. Czerniak stated that the outgoing Board members will be invited back to be formally recognized for their service at a future meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development