Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2013/04/10 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the April 10, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, April 10, 2013, at 6:30 p.m., at City Hall, 220 E. Deerpath, Lake Forest, Illinois. Commission members present: Chairman Michael Ley and Commissioners Augie Ziccarelli, Lloyd Culbertson and Jim Carris Commissioner absent: John Anderson and Jeff Kuchman Staff present: Catherine Czerniak, Director of Community Development 1. Introduction of Commissioners and staff. Chairman Ley introduced the members of the Commission and City staff. 2. Approval of minutes. No action was taken on this item. 3. Public Hearing and Action: Re-consideration, at the direction of the City Council, of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 46-10 as it pertains to fences in ravines and on bluffs. Presented by: City staff Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts, hearing none; he noted that this item was remanded to the Commission by the City Council for further consideration. He invited a presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak reviewed that consideration of a proposed amendment to the Code pertaining to fences was before the Commission in January of this year. She stated that after the Commission reviewed the proposed amendment, heard public testimony and deliberated, the Commission forwarded a recommendation in support of an amendment to the Code related to fences to the City Council. She added some background on this topic noting that in the past, City staff has worked closely with owners of properties on ravines and bluffs in an effort to balance various interests including the property owners need for security, preservation of the natural character of the areas, protecting trees and vegetation and avoiding obstruction of stormwater flows. She explained that based on resident input to the City Council in recent months, the City Council directed the Plan Commission to consider an amendment to the Code regarding fences in ravines and on bluffs. She explained that when the Plan Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 2 of 11 Commission’s recommendation in support of a Code amendment pertaining to fences was presented to the City Council, the Council was generally supportive of the concept of protecting ravines and bluffs going forward. She noted however that the Council raised questions about the appropriateness of the amortization period for existing fences which would require removal of existing fences within 10 years after adoption of the amendment. She noted that the City Council acknowledged that property owners who have erected fences in ravines and on bluffs in conformance with the current Code have invested money in those fences. She stated that in response to the Council’s comments, the proposed Code amendment is now presented to the Plan Commission without an amortization period. She explained that the Code language, as now proposed, would allow existing fences to remain so long as fences are upright, stable, do not impede stormwater and do not cause a safety issue. She added that as currently proposed non-conforming fences would be required to be taken before the sale of a property. She repeated that the amortization clause is struck from the proposed language in the written materials presented to the Commission. She noted that one alderman raised a second question with respect to the proposed Code language noting that as presented, there is an opportunity for a property owner wanting to install a fence in a ravine or on a bluff after the amendment is approved to request a variance from the Code. She noted that the alderman stated that in his view, fences should just be prohibited without an opportunity for a variance. She stated that from the staff perspective, allowing a property owner to pursue a variance is consistent with the existing variance process for other provisions in the Zoning Code. She stated that the variance process has worked well in the past and allows the property owner to make a case that specific criteria are met and a decision to be made through the public process. She stated that the variance process recognizes that there are unique situations and specific hardships that may warrant consideration of a variance. She offered that for instance a situation where an owner is undertaking a major restoration of a ravine or bluff and a fence is needed to support terracing or other restoration activity might be found to meet the variance criteria. She stated that staff recommends that the language allowing the opportunity for a variance be retained in the amendment. She stated that after hearing public testimony and deliberating, it would be appropriate for the Commission to re-issue a recommendation on the amendment for Council consideration. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that she could not think of an instance where the amortization tool has been used in Lake Forest. She stated however that the tool is used in other communities and the City Attorney confirmed that it is an appropriate tool to achieve the removal of certain uses or structures so long as the amortization period is found to be reasonable. Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 3 of 11 In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as now presented to the Commission, the amortization period is removed but the requirement for a fence to be removed prior to a change of ownership remains in the amendment. She explained that the need to remove the fence would be identified through the home inspection that is already required prior to the City issuing a Transfer Stamp at the time of closing of a sale. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a request for a variance would be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals and could be referred to the Building Review Board or Historic Preservation Commission if the Zoning Board of Appeals determined further review was necessary. She noted however that the criteria proposed for variances speak to the appearance of the fence, the type of fence and the fact that it should not be sight obscuring. She stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals will likely be able to handle the review. She added that a requirement for review by another Board or Commission was not included in the proposed amendment to avoid making the variance process overly burdensome. She noted that a slope stability assessment would be required to support a request for a variance. She confirmed that the terms bluff edge and ravine edge are defined in the Code as the point at which the slope of the land first exceeds 10%. She confirmed that the steep slope setback for buildings is a greater distance away from the edge of a ravine or bluff. She stated that essentially, the proposed amendment will allow fences to be located at the point where a ravine or bluff begins, but not down lower on the descending slope. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that under the language as currently proposed, if there is a severe wind storm and a portion of a fence is blown down, it could be reconstructed so long as no new excavations on the slope are required. She stated that if excavation is required, the fence could not be installed unless a variance is granted. Hearing no further questions from the Commission, Chairman Ley invited public testimony. Rommy Lopat, 410 Woodland Road, stated for the record that she does not live on a ravine or a bluff. She stated that the proposed Code amendment language is improved since it was last discussed by the Plan Commission. She stated that the amendment will give staff the tools needed to minimize impacts to the ravines while allowing homeowners’ to request a variance in specific situations. She showed photographs of some existing fences and walls in and near ravines that may be considered minimally sight obscuring. She stated that more study is needed on fences, but that this amendment should move forward as a first step. She stated support for an education program to inform residents about ravines and bluffs and about opportunities to address concerns without building fences. She noted that sometimes a dense thicket or shrubbery may Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 4 of 11 address an issue since the plantings can be impossible to penetrate. She urged approval of the language as presented. Devine Dallaire, 261 Bluffs Edge Drive, stated that as a resident of a ravine property with a fence that would become non-conforming as a result of this amendment, he opposes the requirement for mandatory removal of fences in ravines within a certain time frame. He stated that the language presented to the Commission is improved since the last meeting because the amortization period requiring the removal of fences was removed. He stated that by requiring the removal of an existing fence, the City is imposing a severe economic burden on property owners. He stated that in his case, removal of the fence will diminish his property value. He added that he will have to bear the cost of removing the fence and installing a new fence to secure his pool. He questioned what benefits removal of the fence would have for the community. He stated that there is no evidence that as a result of the construction of his fence the ravine is any less stable or that stormwater flows are impeded. He stated that he has heard comments that the fence made the walking path treacherous and stated that if anyone feels that the walking path is too dangerous, they should stop using it. He stated that no one has a right or title interest in the path explaining that the path is not located in the 20 foot access easement. He stated that he has heard that the fence is an aesthetic concern for the neighbors and for people walking in the ravine and stated that he understands that others would like an unobstructed view of the ravine. He stated that he tried to be considerate by locating the fence above the path and by not impacting vegetation. He stated his expectation that those using the path would be respectful of his rights. He stated an understanding that zoning aims to strike a balance between private rights and the public good. He stated however that he does not see how a retroactive clause that targets his property for the benefit of a small part of the community is appropriate. He requested that there be no retroactive provision in the amendment. Marc Austwick, a resident of Fairway Drive, stated concerns about the fence on Mr. Dallaire’s property in general asking whether it meets setback and height limitations. He questioned the purpose of the fence commenting that he has been using the beach for 37 years and has never seen a fence that violates the ravine to this extent. He stated that the fence has made the path dangerous. He asked that the fence be removed. He noted that other areas of the property above the fence are open and the property is not fully secured. He asked that the Commissioners go to see the fence and require that it be removed. Don Zordani, 1141 Gavin Court, stated that he was the contractor for Mr. Dallaire’s house and previously lived in the neighboring house. He stated that Mr. Dallaire followed the proper procedures and got a permit prior to constructing the fence. He stated that the permit was issued because the Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 5 of 11 fence met the requirements of the Code. He stated that the issue is property rights and acknowledged that some neighbors do not like the fence but noted that it is on private property. He stated that people walk through the ravine to get to the beach and are trespassing. He noted that the fence was intentionally set back to not interfere with the existing path. He stated that living on the Lake is trouble explaining that people walk up to the houses and park on the street. He noted that there are some property owners who do not restore the bluffs and ravines and suggested that the community address that issue rather than be concerned about fences. He explained that a fence is required on Mr. Dallaire’s property because there is a pool and he has dogs that if not fenced in, would run through the ravines. He added that a fence is needed for privacy. He stated that Mr. Dallaire’s property is fully enclosed from the side yards to the eastern property line on the shoreline. Chairman Ley asked for a staff response to public testimony. Ms. Czerniak reiterated that in the past, staff has worked with property owners to minimize the impacts of fences in ravines and on bluffs. She stated that this hearing is not about a particular fence although the fence discussed during public testimony at least in part sparked a discussion about fences. She explained that the amortization provision was removed but the requirement for removal of fences prior to the transfer of property to a new owner was retained in an effort to balance the interests of private property owners and the interests expressed by the larger community to see the fences come down at some point. She stated that whether the language as currently proposes strikes the right balance, goes too far, or does not go far enough is for the Plan Commission to determine. Commissioner Culbertson summarized his understanding of the charge of the Plan Commission noting that the Commission should reconsider whether regulations should be established for fences in ravines and on bluffs, whether a variance provision should be included if fences are regulated and finally, whether existing fences constructed prior to any change in the Code should be required to be removed at some time either through an amortization clause or at some other time such as prior to a change of ownership. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that as currently proposed the Code would require removal of fences in ravines and on bluffs prior to the transfer of properties to a new owner. She explained that the City Council did not have an in depth discussion of how the Code language should read, but raised questions and remanded the matter back to the Plan Commission for further study and a recommendation. She stated that with respect to the proposed requirement to remove non-conforming fences prior to the sale of a property, language could be added to clarify that a variance could be requested to allow a non-conforming fence to remain. Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 6 of 11 Chairman Ley invited Commission discussion. Commissioner Carris commented that requiring a fence to be removed prior to the sale of a property could be a logistical nightmare. He added that from a practical point, going through a variance at the time of sale is not reasonable. He stated that the amendment will set clear parameters for what can happen in the future, but stated that fences constructed in conformance with the Code in the past should not be impacted. He suggested that the provision pertaining to the removal of fences prior to the sale of property be stricken. Commissioner Culbertson agreed with the comments of Commissioner Carris. Commissioner Ziccarelli agreed with the removal of the amortization period from the amendment. He stated support for retaining the opportunity for a property owner to request a variance consistent with what is now permitted generally in the Zoning Code. He stated that he is still undecided on whether to require the removal of fences prior to the sale of a property. He stated that part of the reason for this amendment is to preserve community character and removal of non-conforming fences would best achieve that goal. He noted that on the other hand, if the need to remove a fence is identified late in the sale process; that could cause delays in the closing. He stated that he is not opposed to leaving the provision relating to removal prior to a sale in the amendment, but stated that some modification would be needed to make it work. He commented that with respect to the fence discussed during the public testimony, he went to see the fence and it is long, tall and new. He acknowledged that over time, the fence will weather and become less visible. He stated that he is looking for the right balance between the property owners who installed fences and the interests of the community. Chairman Ley suggested that a variance process could be added to the language to allow owners to request a variance for an existing fence and if granted, that would alleviate the need to remove the fence prior to the sale of the property. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak commented that from a practical perspective, the City could make efforts to inform owners of ravine and bluff properties of the Code requirements so that they are aware of the requirement prior to putting their house on the market to allow time for removal or seeking a variance. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that a request for a variance must go through a public process and ultimately be approved by ordinance by the City Council. She stated that variances from the Zoning Code cannot be approved by staff. Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 7 of 11 Commissioner Carris agreed with providing the opportunity for a variance process for owners who desire to construct new fences in the future. He stated however that the Code language should not try to address fences that were constructed in the past unless they are in disrepair. He stated that it is not practical to expect a seller to go through a variance process to gain approval for an existing fence when a house is being sold. He agreed that a variance process should be in place for new fences going forward or for replacement of existing fences. Commissioner Ziccarelli stated agreement with Commissioner Carris. He suggested that language be added stating that existing fences may remain so long as they were constructed with a permit. He stated that if existing fences were not constructed with a permit, they should be removed. Commissioner Carris added that if a fence was constructed prior to the time permits were required, it should not be required to be removed. Commissioner Carris made a motion to recommend approval of the amendment to the City Council with the following changes: elimination of the requirement for removal of non-conforming fences prior to the sale of a property and the addition of language stating that if a fence was not constructed in conformance with the Code regulations in place at the time of construction, that is if a permit was required, but was not obtained, the fence should be removed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Culbertson and was approved by the Commission in a 4 – 0 vote. 4. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of amendments to the Zoning Code, Sections 46-2 and 46-53.3, to permit a Farmers Market as a seasonal use in the B-4, Preservation Business District. Presented by: City staff Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak introduced the item noting the past two years; the City Council approved a Farmers’ Market in the Central Business District as a pilot project. She said that the Farmers’ Market is managed by the City’s Economic Development Coordinator operating out of the City Mangers’ office. She stated that the first year, the Market was located in the parking lot behind City Hall. She explained that after the first year of the Market, staff from various departments met to evaluate the project. In response to some issues and input, the second year, the Farmers’ Market was moved to the parking lot south of the train station, just north of Deerpath. She stated that after that season, staff met Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 8 of 11 again to debrief how things went. She stated that the Market has received good support from the community and operated smoothly. She stated that prior to the start of each of the past two seasons; the City Council approved the Market as a temporary special use. She explained that now that the Market has proven to be successful, an amendment is proposed to allow the Farmers’ Market to operate in the B-4 district as a permitted use subject to an annual administrative approval to assure certain performance standards are met. She noted that the proposed Code amendment language requires an annual review of circulation routes and emergency access and conformance with a number of parameters. She stated that the intent of the amendment is to streamline the approval process for the Farmers’ Market. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that to her knowledge, businesses in the Central Business District have not complained about the Farmers’ Market but instead, support it since it brings people into the Central Business District. She stated that retailers were among those who supported the move of the Market to the train station parking lot so it would be more centrally located. She stated that the expectation is that the Market will continue to be operated by the City with perhaps some help from other not for profit groups. She confirmed that each year, an operating plan will need to be submitted to City staff for review for compliance with the performance standards that would be incorporated into the Code as part of this amendment. She confirmed that the Code would limit products sold at the Market to locally grown and produced products. She confirmed that each vendor must sign an agreement with the City that was developed by the City Attorney which addresses insurance, liability and responsibility issues. In response to questions from Commissioner Carris, Ms. Czerniak explained that the Code as proposed would allow the Market to be located on a surface parking, but not in a public street. She confirmed that closing off a public street for an event requires special approval. She confirmed that the intent is to streamline the approval process for the Farmers’ Market noting that the Code language reflects what was learned during the two years of the pilot Market project. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that the Market opened at 8 a.m. last year and 7 a.m. the year before. She confirmed that the Commission could add language to limit how early the Market could be set up if the Commission determines that limitation is needed. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak reviewed that as proposed, the Code amendment would allow the Market to operate up to 6 hours, one day a week, with no more than 30 vendors at one time. She confirmed that as written, one vendor space could be shared by two vendors Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 9 of 11 each operating for three hours. She commented that expecting that the Market would draw 30 vendors at one time is probably overly optimistic. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak agreed to check to see if the City would have any liability for sales taxes. Chairman Ley added that generally, food is not taxed. He commented that the responsibility for sales taxes is generally the responsibility of the seller. In response to a question from Commissioner Carris, Ms. Czerniak agreed to consult the City Attorney on whether language regarding products sold at the Market should specify “legal” locally grown products. Chairman Ley invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited final comments from the Commission. Commissioner Culbertson discussed hours of operation suggesting that some greater flexibility be allowed and suggested operating hours from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m., not including setup. He noted that setup time would be noted in the operational plan and be subject to staff approval. He made a motion to recommend a Code amendment to the City Council to permit a Farmers’ Market in the B-4 District with a modification to the hours in the proposed language to state “between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m., not including Market setup. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziccarelli and was unanimously approved by the Commissioner in a 4 to 0 vote. 5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 46-21 as it pertains to the length of terms for members of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Presented by: City staff Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any conflicts of interest or Ex Parte contacts. Hearing none, he invited a presentation from staff. Ms. Czerniak stated that currently, Zoning Board of Appeals members serve one, five year term. She noted that other Board and Commission members serve a two-year term, with the opportunity to be reappointed twice allowing 6 years of service. She explained that several months ago, the Lake Forest Caucus raised the question of whether the Zoning Board terms could be aligned with the terms of the other Boards and Commissions. She stated that the five year term for Zoning Board of Appeals’ members was originally set to comply with the State Statutes but noted that she confirmed with the City Attorney that since Lake Forest is now a Home Rule community, terms can be set as desired by the Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 10 of 11 community. She stated that the suggestion from the Caucus was simply based on the fact that it may be easier to get people to sign up for a two year term, rather than a five year, with the opportunity for a total of three 2-year terms. Chairman Ley invited public comments, hearing none, he asked the whether current members of the Zoning Board of Appeals would serve out the 5-year term to which they were appointed. Ms. Czerniak confirmed that current members will fulfill their term and in response to a request from Commissioner Carris, she stated that she would consult with the City Attorney to determine whether clarifying language should be added on that point. Hearing no further questions, Chairman Ley invited a motion. Commissioner Carris made a motion to recommend approval of a Code amendment aligning the terms of the Zoning Board of Appeals with other Boards and Commissions. He added that staff is directed to determine whether clarifying language is needed with respect to current Board members serving out their 5 year terms. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziccarelli and was approved in a 4 to 0 vote. 6. Public Testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items. 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak invited Commissioner Ziccarelli to give an update to the Commission on the work of the Hospital Advisory Committee of which he is a member. Commissioner Ziccarelli stated that to date, the Advisory Committee has had two meetings and has met the hospital project team including representatives of the architectural firms for both the interior and exterior of the new hospital. He stated that the last meeting was substantial with the presentation of the preliminary site plan for the central campus area of the hospital. He stated that the Advisory Committee consists of 9 members of various disciplines noting that the members raised numerous questions and offered comments to the hospital team. He stated that the right in, right out connection between Route 41 and the hospital campus is moving forward. He stated that overall; the Advisory Committee is excited to see the progress and the materials at the next meeting. Plan Commission Minutes – April 10, 2013 Page 11 of 11 The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development