NOTICE OF DEMOLITION

510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093 Administration and Finance (847) 501-6000 Fire (847) 501-6029 Police (847) 501-6034

Community Development (847) 716-3520 Public Works (847) 716-3568 Water and Electric (847) 716-3558

WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF MEETING

August 10, 2015 7:30 p.m.

The Winnetka Zoning Board of Appeals regular scheduled meeting will convene on Monday, August 10, 2015 in the Council Chamber at the Winnetka Village Hall, 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois, at 7:30 p.m.

AGENDA

1. Approval of July 13, 2015 meeting minutes.

2. Case No. 15-19-V2: 525 Elm St. Alan and Nancy Kubicka Variations by Ordinance 1. Side Yard Setback 2. Rear Yard Setback 3. Garages

3. Other Business Note: Public comment is permitted on all agenda items. The Village of Winnetka, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that all persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities contact the Village ADA Coordinator at 510 Green Bay Road, Winnetka, Illinois 60093, (Telephone (847) 716-3543; T.D.D. (847) 501-6041).

DRAFT

WINNETKA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 13, 2015

Zoning Board Members Present: Joni Johnson, Chairperson Chris Blum Thomas Kehoe Carl Lane Mark Naumann

Zoning Board Members Absent: Mary Hickey

Jim McCoy

Village Staff: Michael D’Onofrio, Director of Community Development Ann Klaassen, Planning Assistant

Agenda Items: Case No. 15-17-V: 480 Sheridan Road Scott and Jennifer Striegel Variation by Zoning Board of Appeals

1. Front Yard Setback

Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals July 13, 2015

Call to Order: Chairperson Johnson called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. Approval of Minutes: Chairperson Johnson stated that the Board would now review the June 8, 2015 meeting minutes. She noted that she submitted her changes via email to Mr. D'Onofrio. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. No comments were made at this time. Chairperson Johnson then asked for a motion. A motion was made by Mr. Lane, and seconded by Mr. Blum, to approve the minutes and findings from the June 8, 2015 meeting, as amended. A vote was taken and the motion was unanimously passed. 480 Sheridan Road, Case No. 15-17-V, Scott and Jennifer Striegel, Variation by Zoning Board of Appeals - Front Yard Setback

Draft Minutes July 13, 2015 Page 2

Mr. D’Onofrio read the public notice. The purpose of this hearing is to hear testimony and receive public comment regarding a request by Scott and Jennifer Striegel concerning a variation by the Zoning Board of Appeals from Section 17.30.050 [Front and Corner Yard Setbacks] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a one-story addition that would result in a front yard setback of 22 feet from Oak Street, whereas a minimum of 30 feet is required, a variation of 8 feet (26.67%). Chairperson Johnson stated that she had a question as to what percentage variation would trigger Village Council review. Mr. D'Onofrio responded 50%. Chairperson Johnson swore in those that would be speaking on this case. She then stated that there is a different address within the application than what is shown in the agenda report. Paul Konstant of Konstant Architecture introduced himself to the Board along with Jon Golde from his office. He then referred to the existing site plan of the home on the property showing the setbacks and showing the shape of the lot. Mr. Konstant stated that they assumed that at some point, the property to the west was subdivided off of the main property. He noted that the home was built in 1921 and that while Ms. Klaassen could not find a record of the subdivision, he stated that if you look at the lot in its entirety, he described it as an unusually shaped lot. Mr. Konstant stated that they were hired by Jennifer and Scott Striegel to renovate the home. He described the home as a very nice home with a very nice presence on the street. Mr. Konstant stated that the applicants live in the home with their young family and plan to stay in the home. He noted that there is a one car attached garage which faced Sheridan Road which is conforming. Mr. Konstant then stated that although the lot is in the R-4 zoning district, he informed the Board that it is a nonconforming lot with a requirement of 13,300 square feet and that the existing lot measured 13,191 square feet. Mr. Konstant went on to state that with regard to the things that the applicants want to do to the home, it included a two car garage so that vehicles would not have to sit outside. He informed the Board that the existing one car garage is not really accessible and that it has a garage door which measured 8 feet wide. Mr. Konstant stated that they looked at how they could add onto the home in terms of a detached or attached garage and that there was no reasonable alternative anywhere on the property. He informed the Board that to locate the garage in the rear quarter of the property would require extensive lot coverage in the form of a driveway and he stated that alternative would severely diminish the value of the property. He stated that the home could be torn down and a new structure could be built which would be significantly larger than the existing home. Mr. Konstant estimated the size of the home to be 3,170 square feet where they could build a home which measured 4,453 square feet. Mr. Konstant stated that in terms of how they looked at adding a garage on the property, they looked at having a detached garage as well as putting the garage underneath the home but that they


felt that with the amount of work, grading and water in that area, that would not be a wise decision. He also stated that they considered adding a garage on the existing front elevation on the north side facing Oak Street but that in addressing that in the form consistent with the existing architecture and the garden wall which tied into an additional garden wall, that would run along the east face and the north face of the property to give them security for their young family. Mr. Konstant noted that alternative is nonconforming. He then stated that would require an 8 foot variation on the Oak Street side of the front yard corner lot. Mr. Konstant stated that they are not asking for a lot of garage space and stated that the east wall of the garage would be 18 feet deep and that a small vehicle would work in there. He also that it would conform in every other way to the requirements of the Village for an attached garage. Mr. Konstant stated that with regard to the addition, he referred to the front porch which would be consistent with the architecture of the home and which he identified in the floor plan. He then referred to the new garage, mudroom and access to the kitchen. Mr. Konstant stated that it is a reasonable request and that there are not a lot of options on the property. He also stated that he felt that the property would be “rogue” in terms of the value of the property and that they cannot put a two car attached garage on the property without a variation. Mr. Konstant stated that the request would reduce congestion at the corner by moving the driveway from where it is currently located on Oak Street. He stated that they have been very respectful of the existing home and the amount of mass they would be adding and that everything else would be conforming. Chairperson Johnson referred to Mr. Konstant’s comment that the applicants cannot use the existing one car garage at all. Scott Striegel introduced himself to the Board as the owner of the home along with his wife, Jennifer who was unable to attend the meeting. He then stated that with regard to the current state of the garage, they have a modest sized sedan and that it is difficult to fit it into the existing garage. Mr. Striegel described the scrapes on the vehicle and that their wish is to upgrade the size of their vehicles once their children get to the age where they would need a larger vehicle. Mr. Lane asked if the garage is 10 feet wide. Mr. Konstant confirmed that it is 9 feet 11 inches wide. Mr. Lane then asked what is the standard size of a garage. Mr. Konstant responded that they do not do many single car garages but indicated that this garage would qualify as a small city garage. He estimated the minimum for a two car garage at 22 feet wide and that for a one car garage, it would be 11 feet in order to get a 9 foot garage door in and allow for one foot on each side. Mr. Blum asked if this is the original garage from 1921. Mr. Konstant responded that he assumed so.


Chairperson Johnson stated that she had a question with regard to the conforming alternative of less of a variation. She then stated that if they were to add onto the current garage and have the front face on the east elevation, she asked if that would that reduce the amount of the variation. Mr. Konstant responded that it would not and that it would increase the amount of the variation. Chairperson Johnson asked if that would not be a solution in terms of a variation. Mr. Konstant responded not at all and that they looked at entering the garage from the west which is not a solution either and that there is not enough room for a vehicle. Mr. Lane asked what if they were to push the garage 4 feet back on the home to have it attached to the front of the home instead of in the back of the home. He asked if they explored that alternative. Mr. Konstant informed the Board that they explored all of the alternatives and referred to the way that the setback lines work and that alternative would probably require an even greater variation. Mr. Lane asked how would it require a greater variation since it would be located in the back of the home farther away from the Oak Street side of the home which would be farther away from the setback. Mr. Konstant stated that if you were to look at where the side yard setback is and if they were to slide the garage further to the west, he identified the projection of the kitchen relative to the setback line and the side yard setback line. He stated that if they were to slide it any further to the west, it would project over the side yard setback line as well as the front yard setback. Mr. Konstant also stated that there is a bedroom over the existing garage which they would be preserving and would otherwise have to be moved. Mr. Blum asked if the impetus for designing a two car garage is to minimize the variation. Mr. Konstant confirmed that is correct as well as to preserve the home as much as possible. Mr. Lane asked if a variation is required essentially for both the garage and the basement or if it only related to the garage. Mr. Konstant confirmed that it is for both. Mr. Lane asked if they could build the garage addition without the basement. Mr. Konstant agreed that they could and that they contemplated that and that the garage and basement as shown is proposed because the rest of the basement is only 7 feet tall. He also stated that it was proposed as a way of getting a decent height for the basement in the home without tearing up the entire foundation as it existed. Mr. Lane then asked if would be worthwhile going through with the addition of the garage value


wise without getting that additional piece of the basement. Mr. Konstant indicated that it would probably come down to economics. He then stated that they do not know exactly what the foundation is underneath and that it may be a brick foundation and that they do not know what they have in the way of footing. Mr. Konstant also stated that they could excavate down and pick up some ceiling height and remodel the existing footing if there is a footing. He described it as touch and go. Mr. Lane asked if the basement addition below the garage would be standard basement area. Mr. Konstant confirmed that is correct and that it would not be a gym. He added that it would take it down deeper than the existing basement. Mr. Konstant informed the Board that it could be built as a crawl space and that it is an economic decision. He then stated that his guess is that it would be something which would affect the variation. Chairperson Johnson asked why is it not part of the variation request. Ms. Klaassen responded that the basement addition itself was not noticed separately and that the entire addition whether it is above ground or below is within the required setback. Chairperson Johnson asked if they go ahead and do not do anything, will they have to come back. Mr. D'Onofrio responded no and stated that it is the same variation based on what the Board would be approving with regard to the plan. He then stated that if the Board was to approve the plan which showed the basement, the applicants would have the right to build the basement. Chairperson Johnson referred to a previous case which involved an underground variation and the setback and an office on top which was not in the setback. Mr. Naumann asked if there are any other one car garages in the neighborhood. Chairperson Johnson confirmed that there are other one car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Striegel stated that their neighbors to the west, the Byases, have a one car garage. Mr. Naumann referred to the fact that the amount of impermeable lot coverage would be going down. Mr. Striegel referred to the west driveway. Chairperson Johnson stated that at this point, the applicants did not have plans to expand the kitchen and the mudroom. Mr. Konstant stated that they have plans but that they have not gone ahead with all of the construction documents since they were waiting to hear the outcome from this Board. He indicated that it could very well be phased.


Chairperson Johnson stated that for the benefit of the newer Board members, the porch does not contribute to impermeable surface. Ms. Klaassen confirmed that the entire front porch is excluded. Mr. Blum asked if the bend of the house and it being on an angle was designed to minimize the variance or if that is something that was preferred in the design. He described the old home as very linear. Mr. Konstant responded that it respected the setbacks which are there and that it minimized the variation. He then referred to the parallel line of the Oak Street setback and that it made architectural sense. Mr. Konstant stated that it is driven by the setbacks. He also stated that the only other option they would have is to go forward which he commented would not be aesthetically right for the home. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other questions. She then asked if the parkway tree would be affected. Mr. Konstant stated that they would be working around it. He also stated that the sidewalk cut through and that they did try to respect that as well as trying to move the driveway as far west as they could. Chairperson Johnson also stated that for the benefit of the new Board members, since they would be facing the front yard, they need to have the two separate garage doors. She stated that they would have to do that if it was on the east elevation as well. Mr. Konstant confirmed that is correct. Chairperson Johnson asked if there were any other comments. Mr. Striegel informed the Board that the Byases who are their neighbors to the west were not able to attend this meeting but that they have had numerous conversations. He stated that they have given them their endorsement and approval on the project. Chairperson Johnson then called the matter in for discussion. She asked Mr. Kehoe if he would like to start. Mr. Kehoe stated that he lives on Sheridan Road and that the applicants are neighbors and that he has seen them scraping ice off the car in the winter. Chairperson Johnson asked if he was located within 250 feet of the applicants. Mr. Kehoe confirmed that is correct. Chairperson Johnson stated that he should recuse himself since he lives within 250 ft. of the subject site. She then asked if there were any other comments.


Mr. Blum commented that the request made sense to him and that there are not a lot of alternatives here. He stated that the applicants have thought out how to minimize the variation, although there are other one car garages in the neighborhood. Mr. Naumann commented that it is a reasonable request and that a garage which was built in 1921 was built for a different period of time. He also stated that the permeable surface gain is positive and that the applicants have tried to minimize the variation. Mr. Lane stated that these are all reasonable comments and commented that the application was well done. He also stated that the applicants have looked at all of the alternatives and that it is clearly an odd shaped lot which has two front yards which made it difficult to comply with the standards. Mr. Lane then stated that while not part of the variation request, he referred to the addition of a mudroom which he described as beneficial and necessary for homes. He also referred to the notion of a two car garage being a standard. Mr. Lane concluded by stating that he is in favor of the request. Chairperson Johnson stated that she would add that while they have generally found that two car garages are the norm, assuming that it did not require some sort of outrageous variation. She stated that the applicants have done their best to retain the style of the home and referred to the addition of the driveway on Oak Street instead of on Sheridan Road and referred to backing out of the home onto Sheridan Road. Chairperson Johnson then asked for a motion and noted that the Board has final jurisdiction. Mr. Lane moved to approve the variation as requested and submit the applicants’ responses to the standards on page nos. 6 and 7 of the application as sufficient. The motion was seconded by Mr. Naumann. A vote was taken and the motion was passed, 4 to 0, with one recusal. AYES: Blum, Johnson, Lane, Naumann NAYS: None RECUSALS: Kehoe FINDINGS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1. The requested variation is within the final jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 2. The requested variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Winnetka

Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is compatible, in general, with the character of existing development within the immediate neighborhood with respect to architectural scale and other site improvements.

3. There are practical difficulties or a particular hardship which prevents strict application of

Section 17.30.050 [Front and Corner Yard Setbacks] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance which is related to the use or the construction or alteration of buildings or structures.


The evidence in the judgment of the Zoning Board of Appeals has established: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under

the conditions allowed by regulations in that zone. The residence was built in 1921. It needs repairs and updating. Without the addition of at least a two car garage, investing any money in this house makes little sense in the neighborhood that it is in. They explored every option that they could think of; there is no place for a detached two car garage in the rear quarter that doesn’t negatively affect this property or the neighboring property. They looked at an underground option and the amount of grading and excavation would negatively impact this property and its neighbors. It would also increase the negative impact of potential flooding. It is our conclusion that the property cannot yield a reasonable return as it exists. The owners want to remain in this house, but if they were to sell it, it is their opinion that it would sell for land value only and be considered a “teardown.”

2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Such circumstances must be

associated with the characteristics of the property in question, rather than being related to the occupants. The unique circumstances are the shape of the lot, and what appears to be an allowed subdivision of a larger parcel. Property lines along the west side are angled for increased area or street frontage to meet some old zoning requirements.

3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Approval of

the variation will not alter the essential character. The driveway will be moved west, away from Sheridan Road and the cars that now sit in the driveway will be inside and out of view.

4. An adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property will not be impaired. There is

no impact to any neighbor’s light or ventilation. The proposed addition is to the north, which is to Oak Street and it is an open corner.

5. The hazard from fire and other damages to the property will not be increased. There will

be no additional risk of fire or other damages due to the proposed addition. 6. The taxable value of land and buildings throughout the Village will not diminish. The

taxable value of land will not diminish throughout the Village due to the proposed addition. 7. The congestion in the public street will not increase. Moving the driveway entrance

should improve traffic moving west from the corner of Sheridan and Oak. 8. The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will

not otherwise be impaired. The public health, safety, comfort, morals and welfare of the inhabitants of the Village will not be impaired due to the proposed addition.

Chairperson Johnson informed the Board that Jim McCoy will be submitting his request for resignation from the Board due to his travel schedule. She then thanked him for his service and indicated that there may be some applications for his position on the Board. Chairperson Johnson


stated that if any of the Board members knew of anyone, to contact Rob Bahan, the Village Manager. She commented that hopefully, the position would be filled soon. Chairperson Johnson then asked Mr. Blum to give a report with regard to the Plan Commission meeting. Mr. Blum informed the Board that there was a new, revised proposal submitted for the One Winnetka project. He stated that there was a lot of detail and lengthy public comment and that the request was continued again. Mr. Blum stated that they are nowhere near ready to take a vote on it. Mr. Blum then stated that the revised proposal was reduced in height and that things were shifted around. He stated that instead of it being a uniform design, it was chopped up so that it looked like different buildings. Mr. Blum noted that the footprint has not changed and that the setback requirements have not been met and that there are a lot of issues left with regard to that. He stated that it was his first time at the Plan Commission meeting and since they follow a different set of standards, he referred to how the Board looked at reasonable return and things like that, they were very reluctant to discuss any sort of financing. Chairperson Johnson asked if at the July meeting, they would have another revision or if there would just be discussion and public input. Mr. Blum responded that was his understanding. He also stated that parking was changed. Mr. D'Onofrio informed the Board that they eliminated one entire level of parking below the building. Mr. Blum stated that they planned to create a scissored parking lot. Mr. D'Onofrio also stated that they reduced the number of residential units from 120 to 71. Chairperson Johnson asked if they made them larger. Mr. D'Onofrio indicated that they may be a little bit larger. He then stated that with the substantial reduction in the number of units, they were able to eliminate one level of parking. Mr. Blum indicated that he believed that the parking needs have been met. Mr. D'Onofrio confirmed that the applicant would meet the parking requirement. He also stated that one of the things that they did is that the frontage on Elm Street went from one story to two stories to three stories with first floor retail and the second and third floors being townhomes. Mr. D'Onofrio stated that they now have two story townhouses above the first floor. He also stated that they stepped back the east building which was originally six stories and that now it stepped from two, four and five. Mr. D'Onofrio stated that the west building reduced the height from 70 feet to 5½ stories instead of 7 stories which resulted in a reduction of 15 feet off the height of the west building. Chairperson Johnson informed the Board that all of this is on the Village’s website.


Mr. D'Onofrio identified the location on the Village’s website under Community Development Department under “One Winnetka.” He informed the Board that it is up for consideration again two weeks from Wednesday and that after that, if the Plan Commission completed their discussion, both public input and discussions of the Plan Commission, then they can ask the Village staff to draft findings which would go back to the Plan Commission for consideration and/or adoption. Mr. D'Onofrio stated that once that is completed, it would come before the Board to consider. Mr. Lane asked what the best case scenario is. Mr. D'Onofrio responded that would be in September but that he is not sure about that. He also stated that the Plan Commission is talking about having a special meeting in August and that probably more realistically it would be October. Chairperson Johnson asked if the applicant provided a model. Mr. D’Onofrio responded no. Mr. Blum stated that the architect was not there and that there were some comments about the renderings. He indicated that the public comments seemed to be thinning out a little. Chairperson Johnson thanked Mr. Blum for his presentation. Adjournment:

The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Antionette Johnson

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA REPORT

SUBJECT: 525 Elm St., Case No. 15-19-V2

(1) Side Yard Setback (2) Rear Yard Setback (3) Garages

DATE: August 3, 2015 PREPARED BY: Michael D'Onofrio, Director of Community Development The petitioners, Alan and Nancy Kubicka, are requesting variations by Ordinance from Sections 17.30.060 [Side Yard Setback], 17.30.070 [Rear Yard Setback], and 17.30.110 [Garages] of the Winnetka Zoning Ordinance to permit the construction of a detached garage that would provide a side yard setback of 2.33 ft., whereas a minimum of 3 ft. is required, a variation of 0.67 ft. (22.33%) and a rear yard setback of 1.5 ft., whereas a minimum of 3 ft. is required, a variation of 1.5 ft. (50%). The variations are being requested in order to replace an existing two car garage measuring approximately 20 ft. x 20 ft. with a three car garage that would measure 22 ft. x 33 ft. As represented on the attached zoning matrix (Attachment A), the existing garage does not comply with the minimum required 3 ft. setbacks from both the north (2.81 ft.) and west property lines. In fact, the existing garage encroaches 1.82 ft. onto the west neighbor’s property. The proposed garage would provide a side yard setback of 2.33 ft. from the north property line and a rear yard setback of 1.5 ft. from the west property line. The property is located east of Sheridan Rd., at the “T” intersection of Elm St. and Hoyt Ln. in the R-2 Single Family Residential District. The residence is circa 1893. Subsequent building permits were issued in 1940 to construct a one-story two car garage, in 1976 to remodel the kitchen, in 1984 to construct an addition and interior alterations to the residence, in 1991 to construct an addition and interior alterations to the residence, and in 2008 to remodel the kitchen. In 1991 and 2004 permits to replace the detached garage were issued, however, the projects were never brought to fruition. The petitioners acquired the property in 1983. There are no previous zoning cases for this property. The Village Council has final jurisdiction on this request. Attachments: Attachment A: Zoning Matrix Attachment B: GIS Aerial Map Attachment C: Variation Application

ZBA Agenda Packet p. 1

ZONING MATRIX

ADDRESS: 525 Elm St.CASE NO: 15-19-V2ZONING: R-2

EXISTING NONCONFORMING

Min. Average Lot Width

Max. Roofed Lot Coverage

Max. Gross Floor Area

Max. Impermeable Lot Coverage

Min. Front Yard (Lake/East)

Min. Corner (Front) Yard (Elm/South) 23.96 FT

Min. Side Yard (North) 7.98 FT (4) 2.81 FT (5)

Min. Rear Yard (West) 25 FT (4)

NOTES: (1) Based on lot area of 24,196 s.f.

(2) Setback to existing detached garage. The residence is setback approximately 15.35 ft.

(3) Setback to proposed detached garage.

(4) 3 ft. setback is required for a detached garage located within the rear quarter of the lot.

(5) Setback to existing detached garage. The residence is setback 11.32 ft.

(6) Existing detached garage encroaches onto the neighboring property 1.82 ft.

ITEM REQUIREMENTMin. Lot Size 25,200 SF 24,196 SF N/A

6,049 SF (1) 3,918.82 SF 314.93 SF 4,233.75 SF OK

115 FT 79.85 FT

5,591.49 SF 314.93 SF 5,906.42 SF

EXISTING PROPOSED

EXISTING NONCONFORMING

TOTAL STATUSN/A

N/A N/A

OK

OK

12,098 SF (1) 5,222.23 SF 1,292.25 SF 6,514.48 SF OK

7,380.08 SF (1)

N/A

N/A2.33 FT (3) 0.67 FT (22.33%) VARIATION

50 FT (+)50 FT N/A

(1.82) FT (6) 1.5 FT N/A 1.5 FT (50%) VARIATION

56.55 FT (2) 55.46 FT (3) N/A OK

ATTACHMENT A


GIS Consortium – MapOffice™

https://apps.gisconsortium.org/...(1149518.9417266852,1981982.9205154248)_525 ELM ST, WINNETKA 60093&ss=TEXTBOX&zl=11[07/21/2015 11:55:08 AM]

525 Elm St.

0 30 60ft

ATTACHMENT B


http://www.gisconsortium.org/

http://www.mgpinc.com/

ATTACHMENT C














Documents

NOTICE OF DEMOLITION