Loading...
PLAN COMMISSION 2013/05/08 MinutesThe City of Lake Forest Plan Commission Proceedings of the May 8, 2013 Meeting A regular meeting of the Lake Forest Plan Commission was held on Wednesday, May 8 , 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 Jeff Kuchman Commissioners absent: Commissioners John Anderson and Jim Carris, one position vacant 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. Recognition of Former Plan Commission Chairman Jack Reisenberg. Chairman Ley recognized former Plan Commission Chairman Jack Reisenberg. He noted that Mr. Reisenberg served as a Commissioner from 2007 to 2010 and then as Chairman from 2010 to 2013. He noted that Mr. Reisenberg is now serving in an elected position as 3rd Ward alderman. He noted that during Mr. Reisenberg’s time on the Commission, much was accomplished including most notably, approval of the Northwestern Lake Forest Hospital Master. He added that various other developments were reviewed and approved along with various Code amendments. He presented Mr. Reisenberg with a plaque recognizing his time on the Commission and thanked him for his service to the community. Past Chairman Reisenberg thanked Chairman Ley for the words of recognition and commented that he thoroughly enjoyed his time on the Commission and in particular, his time as Chairman. He stated that the Commission accomplished a great deal over the past seven years starting with the discussion of the future of Barat Campus. He agreed that approval of the hospital master plan was a signature project during his tenure. He thanked the Commissioners for their support and professionalism noting that together, they worked through some tough situations. He stated that he is proud of the accomplishments of the Commission. He recognized and thanked City staff for being a good partner and for providing guidance. 3. Approval of minutes of the April 10, 2013 meeting of the Plan Commission. The minutes were approved as submitted. Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 2 of 7 4. Introduction and Preliminary Discussion: Permitting the use of coach houses and garage apartments as secondary residential units on properties zoned for single family use. No action is scheduled on this item at this time. Presented by: City staff Chairman Ley asked the Commission for any Ex Parte contacts or declarations of conflicts on this matter. Hearing none, he noted that no Commission action is requested on this item at this time. Ms. Czerniak introduced the item explaining that in February, 2013, Alderman David Moore held the first Community Engagement meeting. She explained that these meetings are a new approach that is being explored by the City Council to offer the community opportunities to be involved in the discussion of issues early and on an ongoing basis rather than just at the time when decisions are being made. She explained that the topic covered at this first meeting was “granny flats”, secondary living units on properties zoned for single family use. She explained that at the meeting, some residents pointed out that the term “granny flats” is misleading and as a result, the terms coach house and garage apartments are being substituted. She explained that the discussion of this topic was prompted by three key points. She noted that 1) due to the economy, some of the larger properties in the community may be more difficult to sell and providing the option of allowing a secondary residential unit in existing accessory structures on these large properties may be attractive to potential buyers; 2) allowing the use of historic accessory structures as second living units may be an incentive to property owners to repair, restore and preserve the structures; and 3) use of accessory structures as smaller living units offers a type of housing that may meet a demand that is not currently being adequately met in the community. She reviewed some slides of accessory structures in the community. She noted that many of these structures were originally built as living units for gardeners, chauffeurs or other household help. She explained that through the years, the City Code limited the number of living units permitted on properties zoned for single family use to one. She noted that in some cases, accessory units have been used as secondary living units for years and that those in continuous residential use are grandfathered in as pre-existing uses. She noted that the use of those units can continue, but that accessory units that have not been in continuous use as residential units may not be converted back to residential units today, under the current Code. She explained that the current Code permits accessory structures to be used in a variety of ways including as home offices, exercise rooms, art studios, pool houses, storage area, play houses, family bedrooms as an extension of the main house and family rooms. She stated that the use of an accessory structure as a second, separate, rental living unit on property zoned for single family use is not currently permitted by the Code. She noted that at the community forum, it was mentioned that these types of smaller living units might be attractive to Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 3 of 7 teachers, employees of the hospital or City, or smaller families. She noted that currently, use of accessory structures for care taker’s residences or guest houses are permitted only as Special Uses and must be considered through a Special Use Permit public hearing process. She summarized that the question posed as a result of the community discussion was, “are there opportunities that the community should be exploring to support a diversity of housing types and sizes, support preservation of historic accessory structures and support the economic viability of some of the larger properties in the community. She noted that a copy of the T-Form, a summary from the Community Engagement Forum, was included in the Commission’s packet. She emphasized that the T-Form is simply a summary of the ideas that were raised at the meeting, the pros, cons, opportunities and challenges. She explained that as a follow up to the Community Engagement Forum, Alderman Moore presented the T-Form to the full City Council and after review; the Council agreed that further consideration of this issue was appropriate and directed the matter to the Plan Commission for study. She reviewed that tonight’s presentation is intended to introduce the topic to the Plan Commission and to get direction from the Commission on whether it is interested in further study and consideration of possible Code amendment language at a future meeting. She asked the Commission for direction. In response to questions from Commissioner Culbertson, Ms. Czerniak stated that at this point , an in depth inventory of accessory structures has not been prepared pending direction from the Commission on whether this concept should be pursued. She noted however that a preliminary count was completed using the City’s electronic mapping system and about 180 accessory structures were identified. She explained that this number likely includes structures that would not be appropriate for use as living units. She stated that based on information available to staff, a very rough estimate is that maybe 40 to 60 of the structures might be appropriate for consideration for residential use. She estimated that currently, between 10 and 20 accessory structures are grandfathered in as secondary living units on single family properties. She explained that the staff memo in the Commission’s identifies some limitations that the Commission might want to consider for secondary residential living units such as requiring that they be within the historic district, meet a minimum lot size or be located within the buildable area of the property. She noted that at the Community Engagement Forum, some concern was expressed about the impacts that secondary living units could have in tighter neighborhoods, on small lots. She added that there was also a distinction in the discussion indicating general support for the reuse of existing structures, but hesitation about whether new structures, built specifically to accommodate a second living unit, should be permitted. She explained that as a result, the discussion was focused on the adaptive reuse of existing accessory structures, not the construction of new structures. She emphasized that pending input from Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 4 of 7 the Commission, there is no staff recommendation on this topic and no specific Code amendment language presented for discussion at this time. Commissioner Ziccarelli suggested that it will be important to have a precise definition of what constitutes a garage apartment or coach house. He questioned for instance whether the structure would need to be detached from the main house, be located above grade, or meet a maximum square footage requirement. He stated that to support the discussion, a clear definition will be an important first step. He noted concern about whether these structures meet building and life safety codes such as the required ventilation and fire alarm requirements. He stated that consideration of those factors will need to be provided for in the public process. In response to questions from Commissioner Ziccarelli, Ms. Czerniak stated that about 30 people attended the Community Engagement Forum on this topic. She acknowledged that people supportive of this topic were the most likely to attend. She stated that the forum encouraged all points of view to be put on the table and encouraged people to think about issues from a point of view that may be different from theirs. She reviewed the topics of the upcoming community forums. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak clarified that currently, the Code does not permit the use of any accessory structures as a residential unit except those that are grandfathered uses. She suggested that if a Code amendment is developed, the Commission may want to consider limiting the total number of secondary living units that would be permitted on a single lot. Chairman Ley stated that he attended the Community Engagement Forum on this matter and observed a great deal of creative, participative energy at the meeting. He stated that people were clearly in favor of this idea from a preservation standpoint. He noted that to keep the meeting balanced, the participants were asked to think about concerns that others might have about the proposed use of accessory structures as secondary living units. He stated that in his opinion, both sides of the issue as discussed at the forum are summarized on the T-Form. He asked for a sense from the Commission on whether staff should be directed to further explore this issue and bring draft Code language to the Commission for consideration and public discussion. He received a general consensus from the Commission that this topic should be considered further. Chairman Ley invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited a motion from the Commission directing further study by staff. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion direct ing staff to develop draft Code language for Commission consideration and for public comment. Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 5 of 7 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kuchman and was approved in a vote of 4 to 0 with all members present voting aye. 5. Public Hearing and Action: Consideration of an amendment to the Zoning Code, Section 46-24, to establish a review process for requests to extend private roads outside of the City limits. Presented by: City staff Ms. Czerniak stated that on an ongoing basis, City staff, in coordination with the City Attorney, reviews the City Code to identify any areas that may be unclear and areas where there may be gaps. She stated that during a recent review it was noted that currently, there is no review process for a situation where a private road or driveway is proposed for extension to serve development and uses outside the City limits. She noted that in particular, there is no opportunity for a public hearing or consideration of how such a proposed extension might impact City services or neighboring properties in the City. She explained that this gap was brought to the attention of the City Council and the Council directed the Plan Commission to consider a Code amendment to establish a review process for this situation. She stated that this amendment is a proactive step to assure that if this situation arises, there is a process in the Code to allow for review and public input. She explained that the proposed Code amendment would establish the extension of a road outside the City limits as a Special Use and consideration of the request would occur consistent with the process already in the Code for consideration of Special Uses. She pointed out that the proposed amendment does not make a judgment on whether the extension of a private road outside the City limits should or should not occur, but only establishes a process through which the request can be publicly considered. She explained that as with other requests for Special Use Permits, the Plan Commission would hold a public hearing on the matter and forward a recommendation to the City Council. She stated that the staff recommends approval of the proposed Code amendment to fill a gap in the Code. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that construction of a private road or driveway in the City limits would require a permit from the City under the current Code, but explained that the potential for any impact on the City, or impact on properties in the City would not be considered as part of that process. She acknowledged that the scenario would be unusual and may never happen. In response to questions from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak confirmed that under the current Code, other than issuing a permit for the construction of a road, there is currently no process in place that would provide the opportunity for public discussion about the extension of a road outside the City limits. She confirmed that the process would allow residents the opportunity to be informed Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 6 of 7 and comment on the proposal since it would be before the Plan Commission and City Council as part of the proposed process. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak explained that currently, in reviewing an application for permit for a driveway extension across the City limits, staff considers technical issues such as grading, drainage and tree removals, but not uses or impacts. She acknowledged that other communities may be more vulnerable from impacts as a result of road extensions given Lake Forest’s limited perimeter with the Lake to the east however; other communities have experienced unexpected consequences such as impacts on City services and increased traffic. Commissioner Ziccarelli summarized the discussion to this point noting that consideration of an application for a permit to extend a driveway or private road is reviewed at the staff level for technical issues such as drainage and pavement thickness. He stated that currently, there is no public review process for this type of a request and no way to prevent the extension if technical requirements are met. He stated that he understands that this amendment would move the consideration of a request to extend a private road outside the City limits from the staff level, to a public process and as a result, there would be greater oversight and consideration of zoning and land use issues. In response to a question from Chairman Ley, Ms. Czerniak stated that she does not know whether home rule status gives a municipality authority or greater power over extra-territorial development. In response to questions from Commissioner Kuchman, Ms. Czerniak reviewed current Code regulations pertaining to driveways noting that driveway locations are not limited by setbacks except in the front yard at the point where they connect with public streets. She added that the number of driveway curb cuts is limited by the street frontage of the lot. She stated that there are no current regulations that would allow the City to prevent the extension of a road or driveway outside the City limits if technical requirements are met. She stated that the proposed Code amendment is a proactive measure. Chairman Ley invited public testimony, hearing none; he invited a motion on this agenda item. Commissioner Culbertson made a motion to recommend to the City Council approval of an amendment to the Code establishing a public process for considering requests to extend private driveways or roads outside the City limits to serve development or uses outside the City boundaries. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ziccarelli and approved by a vote of 4 – 0 with all Commissioners present voting aye. Plan Commission Minutes – May 8, 2013 Page 7 of 7 6. Public Testimony on non-agenda items. There was no public testimony on non-agenda items. 7. Additional information from staff. Ms. Czerniak reminded the Commission that staff will conduct a poll to find a date that works for a majority of the Commission for the next meeting which will include a tour of the former Municipal Services site at Laurel and Western Avenues. The meeting was adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Catherine Czerniak Director of Community Development