Loading...
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 2011/01/24 Minutes The City of Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals Proceedings of the January 24, 2011 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, January 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: Chairman Cardy Davis and Board members Mike Adelman, Daniel Jasica, Rosemary Kehr, Angela DeDolph, Sam Ciccarelli and Stewart Dixon Zoning Board of Appeals member absent: None Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development. 1. Introduction of Board members and staff, overview of meeting procedures – Chairman Davis Chairman Davis reviewed the meeting procedures and asked the members of the Board and staff to introduce themselves. 2. Approval of the minutes of the November 22, 2010 regular meeting. The minutes of the November 22, 2010 meeting were approved as submitted. 3. A request from the First Presbyterian Church, 700 N. Sheridan Road, for an amendment to the Special Use Permit to authorize the incorporation of the property at 750 N. Sheridan Road into the Church campus. The property is proposed for continued residential use as a manse, a residence for the Pastor, and open space for Church use. Owner: First Presbyterian Church of Lake Forest Representative: John F. Johnson, Executive Director Chairman Davis asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he noted that as he stated at the previous meeting, he is a member of the First Presbyterian Church. He stated however that he will be able to rule impartially on the request. He swore in all those intending to speak on this matter. Mr. Johnson introduced the petition noting that since the last meeting, the Church has made every effort to follow the direction of the Board and to be understanding and respectful of the interests of all affected parties. He noted the various meetings that have occurred since the last Board meeting with the neighbors and City staff. He reviewed an overall site plan of the church campus noting the location of the 750 N. Sheridan Road property. He reviewed some of the recent improvements made to the overall Church property pointing out the landscape improvements made along Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 2 Sheridan Road. He noted the intent of the Church to make comparable improvements to the 750 N. Sheridan Road property consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed plan for the rear yard of the 750 property noting that most of the concerns heard from the neighbors pertained to that area. He reviewed revisions and enhancements made to the plan since the last meeting. He stated that the revised plan was presented to the neighbors and that further study was then conducted of key viewpoints from the neighbor’s property. He reviewed the intended landscape buffer planned along the west property line, the designation of a parking area at the southeast corner of the parcel and a plan for fencing and landscape screening of any additional parking that is created. He noted that care was taken to consider the views from the neighboring homes in placing the various screening elements to provide all season screening. He noted that the yard directly associated with the Manse was expanded slightly to restrict the size of the Church yard and to physically limit the type of activities that might take place there. He noted that the 20’ buffer is respected the full length of the yard. He noted that the identified future parking area is limited to the area currently covered by the driveway and garage and is further limited to a maximum of 2,750 square feet. He stated an understanding of the neighbors’ concern about seeing cars in this area. He noted that careful attention was given to assuring year round screening of the additional parking. He noted that with respect to the house, improvements to the first floor are complete and work on the second floor will soon get underway. He summarized noting that the Church has met with the neighbors and has heard and tried to be responsive to their concerns about parking, lights, landscaping and use. He clarified that the site is intended for small Church related uses and is not intended as a public park. He reiterated that several meetings have occurred and that he has talked with all of the neighbors personally over the past two weeks and stated that to the best of his knowledge, all parties are in agreement. Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that the process for this petition took longer than many would have liked, but stated that due to the interest and willingness of all parties, the process worked and a good solution, supported by all parties, is now presented to the Board. She noted that good ideas and offers of compromise were put forth by all parties. She noted that staff attended some, but not all of the meetings held, and that meetings were held at the Church and also at a neighboring home to view the areas of concern. She stated that the petition, as now presented, is the work of all parties. She stated that although none of the neighbors are in attendance, they have communicated support for the revised site plan and the conditions as now presented. She stated that the staff report details the 16 conditions as part of the staff recommendation. She noted that the conditions address various issues including permitted uses, the location of any additional parking and landscape screening. She offered to review the conditions in detail if desired by the Board. She stated confidence that the proposed landscape screening, as well as the new garage, will provide additional screening of existing views and of any new parking on the Church property. She commented that the Special Use Permit recognizes the specific uses the Church intends for the property and importantly, provides ongoing protections to preserve the privacy and character of the surrounding residential homes. She commented that the 750 property today is likely in the condition that it is because the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 3 same type of protections were not in place to provide buffering for this property from Church uses. She recommended Board approval of the Special Use Permit as requested subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the staff report. She thanked all of the neighbors and Church representatives for their involvement and commitment to the process. In response to questions from Board member Ciccarelli, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the revised landscape plan and revised conditions of approval were distributed to all neighbors who expressed an interest in the project. She noted that she received several e-mails from neighbors stating support of the project and conditions as now proposed. She confirmed that she has heard no objections to the present plan. She confirmed that Mr. Landis, the property owner immediately to the west, communicated that he is supportive of the revised site plan so long as the conditions as now proposed are included in the Special Use Permit. Board member Adelman noted that it is his understanding that some of the neighboring residents in this area reside in Florida during the winter, he asked for assurance that all residents have had adequate time to review the proposal and provide input. In response, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that to the best of her knowledge, all of the interested neighbors have been kept informed throughout the process, have participated in one or more meetings and were included in numerous e-mail correspondences. She reiterated that based on the communications she has received, all neighbors support the present plan and that she has heard no objections. Board member Adelman noted that nothing was provided to the Board in writing from the neighbors indicating their support. He agreed that the new garage will provide some additional screening of the existing Church parking area which will benefit the neighbors. He discussed recommended condition #12 noting that although unlikely, if re-subdivision of the property to re-establish a single family lot in single ownership is requested, the condition should provide assurance that any added parking spaces must be removed and the lot returned to its current, pre-Special Use Permit, configuration. In response to Mr. Adelman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the intent of the condition was to prevent a re-subdivision that would create an unusually small lot carving off only the house and new garage. She offered that the condition could be modified to address Board member Adelman’s concern and to specify that the current configuration of the lot be restored, or at least that no reduction from the pre-Special Use Permit size of the lot be permitted and that no reduction, beyond the current width and depth of the lot, be permitted. In response to questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if a re- subdivision is requested in the future, additional land would need to be added to meet the minimum lot size or a variance would need to be requested. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 4 In response to questions from Board member DeDolph, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as part of any future re-subdivision, a variance would need to be requested for the garage as well. She stated that approval of any future re-subdivision could be difficult. She confirmed the location of the Landis property. She discussed recommended condition #2 stating that the condition attempts to address a situation where the Church may desire that the house, the Manse, be occupied by someone other than the Church Pastor. In response to questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak acknowledged that conditions #1 and #2 both state that the house must be used in a manner consistent with the R-3 residential zoning district in which it is located. She noted however that condition #2 is intended to address more specifically who is permitted to occupy the house recognizing that there may be a time when the house does not work for the Church Pastor for one reason or another. She confirmed that the only use permitted in the house is use as a single family residence. In response to additional questions from Board member Jasica, Ms. Czerniak explained that the gates referenced in recommended condition #7 are intended to facilitate use of the yard as part of Church activities. She suggested that to address Board member Jasica’s point, language could be added to the condition to clarify that the gates are intended to both facilitate use of the yard for Church activities, and to limit use of the yard to activities related to the Church. In response to questions from Board member Dixon, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that if the Church moves forward with installation of the additional parking spaces; grading and drainage plans would need to be submitted for review by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. Chairman Davis invited public comment. Hearing no public comment, he invited final comments from the petitioner. Mr. Johnson clarified that he met with Mr. Landis most recently two days ago and reviewed the various changes made to the plan to address his concerns. He stated that the fencing, gates and proposed landscaping were all agreed upon. Board member Jasica suggested modifications to condition #7 pertaining to the gates consistent with the Board’s discussion. In response to a question from Chairman Davis, Ms. Czerniak summarized that also consistent with the Board’s discussion, conditions #1 and #2 could be modified to make it clear that use of the property must be consistent with the R-3 zoning district, recognizing that other aspects of the development such as the setbacks, will not be under the approved plan. She also noted that in response to comments from Board member Adelman, condition #12 could be modified to state that in the event of a request for future re-subdivision, at a minimum, the existing configuration (the pre- Special Use Permit configuration) of the lot must be restored and that reduction in the size of a new lot smaller than the pre-existing lot, should not be permitted. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 5 Board member Kehr made a motion to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the following conditions of approval. Prior to issuance of a permit The Manse and Manse Yard – Front portion of the 750 property. 1. Use of the Manse and Manse yard shall be consistent with all regulations of the R-3, single family residential zoning district in which the property is located. 2. The residence at 750 Sheridan Road, the Manse, shall be occupied by a single family and said family shall be the family of the Pastor, a member of the clergy or other member or Church staff as authorized by the Church as part of an employment agreement. Any occupancy of the house by a single family, other than those described above, shall be in full conformance with the uses permitted in the R-3, single family residential district. 3. No additional impervious surface shall be constructed on the Manse parcel beyond that reflected on the site plan attached to this Special Use Permit. Specifically:  The driveway in front of the house shall not be expanded and the existing landscaped area shall be retained in the configuration as reflected on the site plan attached to the Special Use Permit.  No additional structures or impervious area, beyond the garage, patio areas and walkways as reflected on the site plan shall be permitted. 4. A fence, 7 feet in height, the maximum height permitted by the Code, shall be maintained by the Church in good condition along, or close to, the west property line along the Manse yard. 5. A landscape buffer of 20 feet shall be maintained along the fence on the west property line. Landscaping in the buffer area shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan which is to be kept on file in the City of Lake Forest Community Development Department. This buffer area is intended for passive use only, no permanent or temporary structures shall be constructed or located in this area and no active or organized activities shall encroach into this area. The Church Yard - The rear portion of the 750 property. 6. The Church yard shall be maintained as landscaped open space and used for Church authorized activities which may include, but are not limited to, after service gatherings, small social events and private meditation. The activities shall be generally consistent with activities that are permitted in the yards of residentially zoned properties. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 6 7. The area of the Church yard currently developed with the driveway, the garage and the garden shed, shall be cleared and landscaped consistent with the approved landscape plan except for the southeast edge of the site which may be developed with up to 9 parking spaces consistent with the site plan attached as an exhibit to the Special Use Permit. If the parking spaces are installed, they must be screened through a combination of fencing and landscaping to screen views of the parked cars from the adjacent residential properties. If the parking spaces are not installed, the screening, a combination of fencing and landscaping, shall be installed along the east property line, adjacent to the existing Church driveway. To facilitate and limit use of the Church yard, the fence whether located on the east property line or if the 9 parking spaces are constructed, along the east edge of the Church yard adjacent to the parking spaces, shall have one or more gates to allow passage into the yard from the larger Church property. 8. The final detailed planting plan shall be subject to final approval by the City’s Certified Arborist and shall be consistent with the landscape plan presented to the Board. In particular, the plan shall provide for year round screening of parking and driveways areas on the Church property, from the adjacent residential properties. Replacement of any vegetation that is determined by the City’s Certified Arborist to be dead or failing to thrive, shall be the responsibility of the Church. 9. No portion of the Church yard, except the area referenced above, may be used for parking now or in the future. 10. Any lighting in the Church yard shall be in conformance with the Residential Lighting Guidelines which apply to all residential properties. 11. A fence, 7 feet in height, the maximum permitted by the Code, shall be maintained in good condition along, or close to, the west property line the full length of the Church yard. A landscape buffer of 20 feet shall be maintained along the fence. Landscaping in the buffer area shall be consistent with the approved landscape plan. This area is intended for passive use only, that is, no permanent or temporary structures shall be constructed or located in this area and no active or organized activities shall encroach into this area. General 12. Once the residential parcel addressed as 750 Sheridan Road is incorporated into the Church property through this Special Use Permit, a separate residential lot may only be re-established through resubdivision of the property. As part of any resubdivision, removal of the parking spaces approved as part of this Special Use Permit shall be required. Further, if one or more variances are requested as part of a resubdivision request, it is the intent of this approval that this lot shall not be re-created in an manner Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 7 that reduces the lot size, setbacks or lot coverage, or changes the configuration, from the conditions existing prior to the approval of this Special Use Permit. 13. The historic garage and cottage on the larger Church property, identified on the attached exhibit, shall be maintained on a continuous basis to prevent water infiltration, deterioration or demolition by neglect unless and until approval is granted through the standard public review process for alteration, relocation or demolition of the structures. 14. The Church shall provide regular security patrols of the Manse, Manse yard and Church yard consistent with the schedule of security patrols of the overall Church campus. 15. Any future requests for modification of the Special Use Permit shall be evaluated by the appropriate City Board, Commission and by the City Council with careful consideration of the findings which served as the basis for this approval and to assure that the overall residential character of the neighborhood is retained and that the integrity of the historic district in which the Church is located is preserved. 16. The Church shall provide a minimum of 90 days written notice to neighboring properties, a minimum of three properties deep surrounding the Church property, prior to the submittal of any future petition to the City requesting amendment to this Special Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Board member Ciccarelli and it was unanimously approved by the Board. Chairman Davis thanked all parties for the hard work that went into making this project acceptable to all involved and affected. 4. A request for approval of variances from the side and rear yard setback requirements to allow modification to the existing attached garage at 865 Church Road. Owners: Walter and Nancy Johnston Representative: John Krasnodebski, architect Chairman Davis introduced the petition and swore in those intending to speak on the petition. He asked the Board for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from Mr. Krasnodebski. Mr. Krasnodebski introduced the petition noting that two variances are requested, from the side yard and rear yard requirements, to allow construction of the addition proposed by the homeowners. He provided photos of the petitioners’ home and of other homes in the neighborhood. He noted that the home, as it sits today, is well screened from the street. He added that the house sits far back on the lot and pointed out the garage as it exists today. He discussed the existing non-conforming conditions. He noted that the existing garage encroaches into the side and rear yard setbacks and pointed out that the house is also nonconforming. He explained that the non- conforming condition is the result of a City initiated zone change that affected the Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 8 property causing the non-conforming condition. He offered views to the site from the neighboring properties. He reviewed the site plan and stated that there will be no change to the existing footprint of the house. He stated that this design minimizes the impact on the site and stays within the lines of the existing non-conformities. He stated that the project is proposed to make this older home more livable. He stated that the proposed addition is in keeping with the architecture of the home. He noted that the volumetric change will be a height increase of less than 4 feet in the wall height. He reviewed each elevation. He stated that the primary intent of the design is to keep the addition as low as possible. He noted that the dormer on the north elevation is setback from the existing plane of the garage to diminish the encroachment. He stated that the proposed addition meets all of the criteria for a variance and noted that no building scale variance is requested. He asked for Board support of the project. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that the nonconforming situation on the property results from a City initiated change. She stated that the home was constructed in 1935 and was in full conformance with the zoning in effect at that time. She stated that as part of a larger zone change, the property was later rezoned and new requirements were placed on the property creating the non-conforming situation. She reiterated that no change to the footprint is proposed and that efforts were made to keep the height increase to the minimum necessary to achieve the owner’s desired expansion. She noted that in particular, the dormers on the north elevation were pulled back from the existing façade to more closely conform to the setback requirement. She confirmed that no building scale or lot coverage variances are requested. She stated that the request is for approval of side and rear yard variances to allow construction of an addition within the footprint of the existing house. She stated that public notice was mailed consistent with standard practices and stated that staff did not receive any contacts from neighboring property owners. She recommended approval of the variance based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval both of which are included in the staff report. In response to questions from Board member Kehr, Mr. Krasnodebski explained the connecting structure proposed between the garage and the house noting that the existing eave line will remain and the roof pitch will be increased to allow a person to walk through that area. He noted that no dormers are proposed in this area and that it recedes from the plane of the structure. He pointed out that shingles would be used to minimize the visibility of this element. In response to questions from Board member DeDolph, Mr. Krasnodebski confirmed that consideration was given to constructing the addition on the south side of the home. He noted that an addition on the south side would be more visible and would have more impact on both the existing home and he stated that a variance would be required in that location as well. Board member Dixon noted that the house is a great Stanley Anderson house. Chairman Davis invited public comment. Hearing none, he invited final comments from the Board members. Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes January 24, 2011 Page 9 Board member Ciccarelli commended the petition noting that the addition is minimal and has been carefully designed to respect the views of the neighbors. Board member Kehr commented that the proposed addition improves the scale and proportion of the original home. Board member Adelman stated his agreement with the comments of the other Board members and noted that the home has significant charm and character. Board member Jasica made a motion to recommend approval of the variances as requested based on the findings in the staff report and subject to the conditions of approval as recommended in the report. The motion was seconded by Board member Dixon and it was unanimously approved by the Board. Board member Adelman commented that both petitions presented at this meeting were well thought-out and a testimony to how the process works. He noted that the work presented was comprehensive. OTHER ITEMS 5. Opportunity for the public to address the Zoning Board of Appeals on matters not on the agenda. There were no additional public comments. 6. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak stated that at this point, no petitions have been submitted for consideration at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in February. The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development