Village of

In response to the ongoing pandemic and in conformance with the Governor’s
Executive Orders and/or Public Act pertaining to public meetings, President Potter has declared that an in-person meeting of any Board, Commission or Committee is not practical or prudent. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting will be held via
video conference. The public may observe the proceedings via the link provided below. Public comment for the meeting will be accepted in writing to [email protected] up
to 4:00 PM on the day of the meeting, or during the Public Comment section of the meeting by using the “raise
your hand” function (for online participants only). Please see the Rules for Public Comment posted at www.vok.org for additional details.
Video Conference Link:
https://zoom.us/j/99026082780?pwd=aUJIOXduYTN4VGgyQ2RFZkpDOTNiZz09
If you do not have access to a computer, you may attend via telephone:
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) Meeting ID: 990 2608 2780
Passcode: 653230
Monday, February 8, 2021 at 7:00 p.m.
Kenilworth Village Hall, 419 Richmond Road
Agenda
I. Call to Order / Roll Call
II. Approval of Minutes of January 11, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
III. Public Hearing to Consider Variations from the Maximum Floor Area Ratio and Minimum Yard Regulations– 219 Sheridan Road (continued from January 11, 2021 meeting)
IV. Other Business
VI. Rules for Public Comment may be viewed at https://www.vokil.org/DocumentCenter/View/1423/Rules-for-Public-Comment
VII. Adjourn
The Village of Kenilworth is subject to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Individuals with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who require certain accommodations in order to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or who have questions regarding the accessibility of the meeting or the facilities are requested to contact Patrick Brennan at 847-251-1666 promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons.
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Kenilworth in the Kenilworth Village Hall, Kenilworth, Illinois was held virtually at 7:00 pm on Monday, January 11, 2021. Chairperson Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Attendance was as follows: Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: Vicki Thompson Chair Frank Cavalier Member (arrived 7:25pm) Kate Peterson Member Cary Johnson Member Mark Hinkamp Member Hester McCarthy Member (arrived 7:14pm) Jenelle Chalmers Member Zoning Board of Appeals Members Absent: None A quorum was present. Other Recorded as in Attendance: Village Officials and Staff: Jon Branham Building & Planning Manager Others, Signing In: Mark & Yoanna Kulas Thomas & Betsy Kilroy Robin & Alison Winslow Arthur & Elizabeth Duquette Lois Stanley Mike Abraham Diana Melichar
Village of Kenilworth Zoning Board of Appeals
2
January 11, 2021 Chair Thompson opened the meeting and administered an oath to everyone who wished to speak on any of the items on the meeting agenda. She also welcomed Jenelle Chalmers to the Board and explained she would not be a voting member until the following meeting. Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 9, 2019 were placed before the members. Member Hinkamp made a motion to approve the September 9, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as presented and Member Peterson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the September 9, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as presented were approved. Agenda Item III. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIATIONS FROM THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS – 717 MACLEAN AVENUE The owner of the property at 717 Maclean Avenue, Thomas Kilroy, presented the zoning variation requests for 717 Maclean Avenue. Mr. Kilroy summarized the application, in which a proposed rear addition would exceed lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. Mr. Kilroy stated the existing foundation was inefficient and allowed for colder indoor temperatures during winter months. He explained the proposed addition would be of minimal impact and would be consistent with the sizes of residences in the direct surrounding area. Commissioner Johnson noted both adjacent neighbors had larger homes that exceeded coverage and floor area requirements, which was common in northwest portion of Kenilworth. He inquired if the addition would have a full basement and appropriate vehicle access. Mr. Kilroy responded in the affirmative on both items. Commissioner Hinkamp inquired about drainage at the property. Ms. Melichar, architect for the applicant, stated they would submit engineering plans with the permit application that would meet requirements and not impact neighboring properties. The Commissioners further discussed the application and the standards for variations. They agreed the plan was sensible and met the standards. Chair Thompson summarized the proceedings and next steps for the applicant. Member Hinkamp made a motion to approve the request for a variations from the maximum building size permitted of 2,886 square feet, to allow a building size of 3,457.95 square feet, which is 571.95 square feet more than allowed, and from the maximum building coverage permitted of 1,924 square feet, to allow building coverage of 1,972.14 square feet, which is 48.14 square feet more than allowed, in accordance with the plans presented. The variations requested by the applicant shall be granted conditioned upon the applicant’s strict compliance with the 717 Maclean Avenue existing and proposed plans, prepared by Melichar Architects dated 10/20/2020 consisting of five sheets. Any subsequent revisions to these plans that affect the scope of the variation granted or that the Code Official determines to be a material change will require the applicant to resubmit an application for the requested variations. Member McCarthy seconded the motion.
3
January 11, 2021 A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Johnson, Hinkamp, McCarthy, Peterson, Thompson Nay: None Absent: Cavalier Abstain: Chalmers The motion was approved 5 – 0. Agenda Item IV. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIATIONS FROM THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, FLOOR AREA, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS – 219 SHERIDAN ROAD The architect for the owners at 219 Sheridan Road, Mike Abraham, presented the zoning variation requests for 219 Sheridan Road. Mr. Abraham summarized the application, in which a proposed addition would exceed setback, lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements. Mr. Abraham explained the awkward layout of the first floor of the residence with the kitchen and garage currently located on opposing ends. He stated the plan was to resolve this item while also turning new garage doors away from the street. He added they would not be increasing the existing setback on the side yard. He said they wanted to be sensitive to the style of the existing home. Yoanna Kulas, applicant, further explained the request and stated the difficulty of the existing garage location specifically with regard to the current kitchen location. Commissioner McCarthy stated she was concerned about the proximity of the proposed addition to the neighboring home to the north. Chair Thompson stated there was some history regarding front-loading garage locations on lakefront properties and it may be helpful to understand development patterns along Sheridan Road. Commissioner Johnson stated he liked elements of the design but the proposed new garage space may be too tight and presented a challenge. He inquired if there was room for a compromise or alternatives. Commissioner McCarthy inquired about the need of the sunroom addition at the rear side of the property. Lili Duquette, resident, stated she did not understand the need for the proposed placement of the garage. Alison Winslow, resident, stated she was concerned if there was a hardship presented and that her property would be directly impacted. She also expressed concern regarding tree removal. Lois Stanley, resident, stated she lived on Sheridan Road and prefers open land in front of the house and that the house layout did not necessitate a variance. Mark Kulas, applicant, stated that they could consider other options but would also consider demolition if the variances were not approved. Mr. Abraham restated the objective of the proposed plan and various items that were considered during design.
4
January 11, 2021 The Commissioners further discussed the application and the standards for variations. They stated it was a wide building on a narrow lot and there were limited options. They discussed the layout of the existing house. They stated landscaping and screening would be important. They agreed further information was needed to review the application and that any scaling back of the project would be beneficial. Chair Thompson summarized the proceedings and next steps for the applicant. Member Hinkamp made a motion to continue the hearing until February 8, 2021. Member Johnson seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken as follows on the motion: Yea: Johnson, Hinkamp, McCarthy, Peterson, Thompson, Cavalier Nay: None Absent: None Abstain: Chalmers The motion was approved 6 – 0. Agenda Item V. OTHER BUSINESS – APPROVAL OF 2021 MEETING SCHEDULE Mr. Branham presented the 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting schedule to the Board. The Commissioners unanimously approved the schedule as presented by voice vote. The Commissioners discussed regulations regarding contractor signs, potential regulations regarding library kiosks, and information regarding accessibility ramps. Agenda Item VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC RELATED TO ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There was no business to consider from the public. Agenda Item VII. ADJOURN Member Cavalier made a motion to adjourn and Member Hinkamp seconded the motion. Upon voice vote, the meeting was concluded at 8:27 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted, Jon Branham Building & Planning Manager
Request for Zoning Board Action Agenda Item: 01 Staff Contact: Jon Branham, Building & Planning Division Subject: Consideration of a Request for Floor Area Ratio and Setback Variations at 219
Sheridan Road Summary: The petitioners, Mark & Yoanna Kulas, are seeking approval of floor area ratio and building setback variances for a proposed garage addition at 219 Sheridan Road. This case was continued from the January 11, 2021 meeting. Since that meeting, the applicant has presented updated plans. The project is to allow a garage expansion / relocation on the first floor of the property. The applicant has reduced the amount of the floor area and setback variance requests. Previously, a sunroom addition was proposed, which has been eliminated from the current application. Also, the roof pitch of the southeasterly garage addition has been reduced and the roof ridge will be two feet above the existing railing. The red-dotted outline of the previous dimensions can be seen on the updated plans. The current variance requests are to approve a floor area ratio of 7,812.4 square feet, which is 532.2 square feet more than the maximum building size requirement of 7,280.2 square feet; to approve a side yard setback of 5 feet, which is 5 feet less than the minimum side yard setback requirement of 10 feet; to approve a combined side yard setback of 10.5 feet, which is 20.4 feet less than the minimum combined side yard setback requirement of 30.9 feet; and to approve a front yard setback of 53.9 feet, which is 6.1 feet less than the minimum front yard setback requirement of 60 feet. The applicant has completed the required legal notice and mailing. APPLICANT & OWNER: Mark & Yoanna Kulas LOCATION: 219 Sheridan Road EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Residence District REQUESTED ACTION: Building Floor Area Ratio and Setback Variations PURPOSE: To approve nonconforming floor area ratio and setbacks of proposed
addition APPLICABLE Section 153.068: Maximum Building Size REGULATIONS: Section 153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements
Considered By: Date: Zoning Board of Appeals 02/08/21
01/11/21
Village of
Attached is the updated Zoning Review of the proposed addition. Applicant Requests the Following: The applicant is requesting variations from the maximum building size and minimum yard setback requirements, as follows:
1. Section 153.068 Maximum Building Size – The petition requests a variation from the
maximum building size permitted of 7,280.2 square feet, to allow a building size of 7,812.4 square feet, which is 532.2 square feet more than allowed.
2. Section 153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements – The petition requests a variation from the minimum side yard requirement of 10 feet, to allow a side yard setback of 5 feet, which is 5 feet less than permitted.
3. Section 153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements – The petition requests a variation from the minimum combined yard setback requirement of 30.9 feet, to allow a combined side yard setback of 10.5 feet, which is 20.4 less than permitted.
4. Section 153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements – The petition requests a variation from the minimum front yard setback requirement of 60 feet, to allow a front yard setback of 53.9 feet, which is 6.1 less than permitted.
Policy: The Zoning Board is vested with the authority to either approve, deny, or direct the applicant to consider modifications to the requested variations. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Zoning Board consider the requested variations and render a decision. Attachment:
VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH ZONING REVIEW
RE: 219 SHERIDAN ROAD Date: Feb. 3, 2021 Page 1 SUMMARY
Zoning District: R-1
5.3 / Maximum Height
(a) Maximum Floor Area:
Maximum Allowed = 7,280.2 SF Existing = 6,930.2 SF Proposed = 7,812.4 SF
(b) Maximum Building Coverage:
(c) Other Impervious Surfaces:
VILLAGE OF KENILWORTH ZONING REVIEW
RE: 219 SHERIDAN ROAD Date: Feb. 3, 2021 Page 2 5.5 / Minimum Size of Principal Building: Minimum Required = 2,000 SF Existing = 3,103.12 SF Proposed = 4,881.99 SF 5.6 / Minimum Yard Requirements: (a) Front Yard: Minimum Required = 60 FT Existing = 75.39 FT Proposed = 53.9 FT to Addition (b) Side Yard: Minimum Required = 10 FT, total = 30.9 FT Existing = 0.5 FT northwest, 5.5 FT southeast, total = 5.5 FT Proposed = 5 FT northwest, 5.5 FT southeast, total = 10.5 FT (c) Rear Yard: Minimum Required = 51.4 FT Existing = 75.39 FT Proposed = 75.39 FT CONCLUSIONS: The proposed plans and calculations as submitted by the applicant DO NOT COMPLY with the Zoning Ordinances of the Village of Kenilworth. The following item does not comply:
1. The proposed Maximum Floor Area is 532.2 square feet more than allowed.
2. The proposed Minimum Side Yard Setback is 5 feet less than required.
3. The proposed Minimum Combined Side Yard Setback is 20.4 feet less than required.
4. The proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback is 6.1 feet less than required.
Direct Area Chronology – home and garage construction 203 Sheridan Rd 1957 – home constructed 2011 – garage addition 219 Sheridan Rd 1922 – home constructed 1989 – garage addition 227 Sheridan Rd 1924 – home constructed 2000 – garage addition *none received variances for garage additions.
MICHAEL ABRAHAM A R C H I T E C T U R E
1 4 8 B U R L I N G TO N S T R E E T
CLARENDON HILLS, ILLINOIS 60514 P H O N E ( 6 3 0 ) 6 5 5 . 9 4 1 7
M I C H AE L - AB R AH AM . C O M
Kulas Residence 219 Sheridan Rd
Kenilworth, IL Request for variation of Kenilworth Zoning Code: Section 153.070 Minimum Yard Requirements: Zoning District R-1 1) Minimum Front Yard: 60 feet in a block with street frontage of more than 400 feet 2) Minimum Side Yard: A minimum width of 10 feet for each side yard, and total side yard width of 30% of the width of the lot After taking into consideration the comments from the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on Jan. 11 and discussing further options with the neighbors, we have made the following revisions to our variance request: Front Yard Setback: Previous Request: 8.61’ Front Yard Variance (51.39’ from front property line) New Request: 6.13’ Front Yard Variance (53.87’ from property line) 10’ Minimum Side Yard Setback: Previous Request: 9.07’ Side Yard Variance (.93’ from side yard property line) New Request: 5’ Side Yard Variance (5’ from side yard property line) 20.9’ Minimum Side Yard Setback: Same Request: 15.39’ Side Yard Variance (5.51’ from side yard property line) Additional changes: Height: Roof pitch of south easterly garage addition reduced. We now propose the new roof ridge will only be 2’ above existing railing. We no longer propose a sunroom be built on the north-westerly side of the existing residence.
Section 153.068 Maximum Floor Area We previously requested a variance to increase the FAR by another 755 sf. After removing the proposed sunroom and reducing the square footage of the proposed garage additions, we now only request a variance to increase FAR by 532.2sf. Previous Request: 1-Car Garage Addition: 418.3 sf
2-Car Garage Addition: 523 sf Sunroom: 163.7sf
New Request: 1-Car Garage Addition: 405.8 sf
2-Car Garage Addition: 476.4 sf
6 0
' F R
O N
T Y
A R
D S
E T
B A
C K
LAKE MICHIGAN
54.76'
OUTLINE OF ORIGINAL PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION
1 4 8 B u r l i n g t o n A v e n u e C l a r e n d o n H i l l s m i c h a e l - a b r a h a m . c o mP 6 3 0 . 6 5 5 . 9 4 1 7 I l l i n o i s 6 0 5 1 4
PROJECT NO:
20034
M ICHAEL A BRAHAM A R C H I T E C T U R E
Kenilworth, IL
1/16" = 1'-0"
A R C H I T E C T U R A L S I T E P L A N
THE KULAS RESIDENCE 219 SHERIDAN RD KENILWORTH, IL
2 .0 3 .2 1
STREET VIEW
2 .0 3 .2 1
SOUTH WESTERLY VIEW
2 .0 3 .2 1
SOUTH EASTERLY VIEW
2 .0 3 .2 1
SOUTH EASTERLY VIEW
2 .0 3 .2 1
THE KULAS RESIDENCE 219 SHERIDAN RD KENILWORTH, IL
2 .0 4 .2 1
NORTH WESTERLY
2 .0 4 .2 1
Sheridan Rd Setbacks
.;&+-;
David Ward 255 Sheridan Rd. 847-323-6151 [email protected] page 1 of 7
January 29, 2021 To: Zoning Board of Appeals I have concerns about the Zoning Variation application for 219 Sheridan Rd. I was unaware of this appeal application until recently so missed the opportunity to hear the discussion at the first meeting. The application does not enumerate the neighbors within 500 feet who were sent the required notice. Since, given current public health concerns, the meeting is virtual I’m providing my questions and observations in writing, so they are easier for the board and attendees to evaluate. My concerns and observations can be summarized as;
(1) The claimed owner’s plight fails to compel the requested variations when considered based on the standards enumerated in the Village code.
(2) The northerly garage, as proposed, fails to address the claimed hardship. Why have a walkway extending the distance if walking distance is the owner’s plight?
(3) The proposed southerly garage and the sunroom variation requests are beyond the scope of the owner’s plight. Together they are the reason for the FAR variance which expands the existing large footprint.
General Observations I have found, since I’m not an attorney, that distilling regulations into “everyday” written form it’s easier to understand the regulator’s intent. Here is a distillation of the Village Zoning Code for application for variations to the residential zoning code.
The Board shall grant variances from the regulations in harmony with their general purpose and intent, only in the specific instances where the Board makes a finding of fact, based upon the standards, that there are practical difficulties or particular hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations.1 Variations may be granted only in the following instances and in no other.2 To vary any of the requirements with respect to maximum and minimum size of buildings, and minimum depth and width of yards.3 The Board shall not grant a variance from any of the regulations unless it shall make a finding of fact, based upon the evidence presented to it in a particular case, that:4 • The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and5 • The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.6
When reading this it is clear that variations to the code are intended to be permitted only when all other options have been exhausted by the applicant. Then to grant only the minimum variation required to accommodate the “practical difficulties or particular hardships”. The only “finding of fact” provided by the applicant, that is within the scope of the Board’s authority, as defined above, are related to the proposed north garage side yard and front setback. The proposed north garage placement and design fail to satisfy the “practical difficulties or particular hardships”. There are other options available to the applicant within “the strict letter of the regulations” that will accommodate the “plight of the owner”. 1 § 153.244 VARIATIONS. (A) Purpose. 2 (D) Authorized variations 3 (D) Authorized variations (1) 4 (E) Standards for variations. (1) 5 (E) Standards for variations. (1) (b) 6 (E) Standards for variations. (1) (c)
This as the final requirement application for variations;
A statement concerning the conformity or lack of conformity of the approval being requested to the village comprehensive plan and official map. Where the approval being requested does not conform to the village comprehensive plan or the official map, reasons justifying the approval despite the lack of conformity shall be stated.7
The applicant failed to address this requirement in their application. When the Board asks them to comply is prudent to ask for the response relative to these specific parts of the Comprehensive Plan;
Kenilworth Comprehensive Plan8 Vision Statement Residential Neighborhoods
In the year 2025 … The Village’s residential neighborhoods continue to be one of the community’s greatest assets. Amendments to the zoning ordinance and sensible and appropriate design guidelines have provided an environment where new infill residential development is compatible and contributes to the overall beauty and character of the neighborhoods. Zoning regulations now provide relief for older homes, making additions and rehabilitating a more viable and competitive alternative to tearing down existing structures. Both old and new homes weave together to maintain and firmly establish Kenilworth’s architecturally significant neighborhoods.9
Land Use Plan Residential The primary purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, as it relates to the single-family residential neighborhoods, is to protect, maintain, and enhance the existing character of the neighborhoods while accommodating appropriate new infill development. The residential areas of the Village consist of attractive neighborhoods with mature trees, a variety of historically and architecturally significant homes, and beautiful open space. Original Settlement Strict covenants were established to ensure appropriate development, including uniform front setbacks, uniform side yard setbacks, high quality materials and architecture, and an overall neighborhood character and “rhythm”.10
Specific Observations (orgainized based on application)
The applicant states, addressing 1) b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances, that the owner’s “plight is “chronic back pain” and that the challenge for the owner is “managing frequent errand between the car and kitchen.” Based on that criterion there is no justification for the request to grant the front yard setback or the total floor area variations. The applicant is proposing a single car garage on the north side of the property to be near the
7 § 153.247 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. (D) Minimum data requirements. (4) Applications for variations. (h) 8 Kenilworth Comprehensive Plan, Adopted January 14, 2008 9 ibid, page 5 10 ibid, page 8
kitchen. The plan, as submitted, has a walkway from the existing mud room to the proposed garage that appears longer than the requested setback variation. The owner’s plight goes counter to adding a two-car garage in front of the existing garage. The proposed southerly garage and adaptation of the existing garage to living space is the reason for requesting a variation for total floor area. The applicant states, addressing 1) c) The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality, “we are mindful of the Georgian-style architecture… the additions are designed … to heighten the visual appearance from the street.” By its nature 1) c) demands the board to apply aesthetic judgement. The proposed northerly garage addition and walkway attaching it to the existing structure has glass walls and a glass panel roof. It’s difficult to comprehend what could be thought of as a glassed-in showroom will “not alter the essential character of the locality.” This is a residential neighborhood. The proposed garage has the characteristics of a commercial showroom in a business district. It seems appropriate, for proper consideration, that the applicant provide the Board, and the neighbors, renderings to help evaluate the visual impact. I recommend two versions; one during daylight; a second during darkness with the interior illuminated. These two images of glass walled structures with interior illumination at night illustrate what is being suggested for the second rendering.
The architect for the renovations at 245 Sheridan used renderings to help the board appreciate the visual impact of their requests11. This is a good precedent for the board to use to help it, and neighbors, understand the impact of a request on “the essential character of the locality.” Additionally, the proposed garage additions extend forward near the property lines. It can be surmised, by referring to this arial view of the property and the two adjoining properties, that they will impact sightlines from the neighboring properties. The arial view also suggests that the proposed garages may impact mature trees in the front yard and potentially on the adjacent properties as well.
11 The renderings were not part of the application. They were provided during their presentation of the application to the board. Hopefully,
they are in the board’s achieves at the village offices.
Once again, the architect for 245 Sheridan’s renovation provides a good precedent for the board. Their application12 included a rendering illustrating landscaping. It also included a site drawing showing trees and other planted areas on their lot as well as the immediately adjacent areas of the neighboring lots. Paragraph 2) says, in part, “… the Board, …shall take into consideration the following factors to the extend they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant…”
a) … result in a practical difficulty or particular hardship… as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulation were enforced;”
The applicant’s description of hardship has no relevance on any of the requested variances other than for the proposed north garage. In this instance, requesting a front setback variance for the proposed garage, as shown, with a walkway from the existing structure to the garage is a “mere inconvenience”. This is also a reasonable description of the side yard setback variance request as well. Paragraph 3) says, in part, “… the Board… may also take into consideration the following factors… to the extent they are established by the evidence and deemed relevant…”
a) The effects of the proposed construction on the overall appearance of the size and bulk of the existing structures on the property when viewed from the streets abutting the property and from adjacent properties.”
As the applicant states, “ … the additions are intended to appear as extensions of already existing elements of the residence.” The proposed garages additions extend beyond the front setback. This is ample evidence that they will negatively impact the overall appearance from the street as well as from both adjoining properties. The justification offered by the applicant can be interpreted as saying “we want the front setback variance because we want it, without regard for overall appearance of the neighborhood.”
12 2016_02_18_ZBA_Packet in the ZBA online achieves.
Placing the proposed garage additions as requested will have a negative impact on sight lines and privacy considerations for adjacent properties. This negative impact is strong evidence that the side yard setback variation requested should be denied.
b) The proximity of the proposed construction to streets abutting the property… The applicant suggests “In order to build a functional garage, the additions will encroach into the front yard setback, creating a closer proximity to the street that will not exceed 50 feet.” The variance is not required to create a “functional garage”.
c) The magnitude of the variation requested in absolute terms and in proportion to the floor area and/or impervious surfaces allowed if the strict letter of the regulation were enforced.
The request for a floor area variance is necessitated by the proposed location of the new southerly garage. First, the proposed southerly garage is not necessitated by the applicant’s hardship. Second, the excess floor area is the result of extending the proposed garage from the front of the existing structure. Based on the provided drawing a “functional garage” can be accommodated without extending beyond the front setback permitted in the code. Which also eliminates the excess floor area. f) The need for the variation to allow the owner … to make reasonable use of the structure, the design of which otherwise fails to conform to generally accepted or prevailing standards of the Village for the use and enjoyment of a structure as a residence for the family; The applicant’s response to this requirement again raises the subject topic of aesthetics. On that basis it is important that the board require the applicant to provide renderings to help it and the neighboring residents to evaluate the aesthetic impact. g) … the degree to which the proposed construction makes efficient, economical, and advantageous use of existing and proposed floor area… The applicant says they want the floor area variance because it will “… create proportional and functional spaces.” Does that address this criterion? h) The reasonableness of the variation requested in light of the purposes served by the proposed construction and the design problem of the existing structure intended to be alleviated by the proposed construction. The applicant suggests there is no alternative conforming location. It appears, considering the drawing provided, that a single car garage can be built within the conforming location on the north side of the property. The single car garage is the only proposed construction required to address the applicant’s plight stated as justification for this request for variance from the Village zoning code. As the drawing, adapted from the proposed construction drawing provided shows, the proposed garage additions can be accommodated within the conforming location.
I appreciate the board addressing these observations and questions. The plight of the owner can be accommodated within the provisions of the Village zoning code related to front setback and floor area. The applicant has put forward aesthetics as one consideration for evaluating the proposed changes. Aesthetics relies on subjective evaluation. To give any weight to aesthetic evaluation necessitates the applicant provide the board, and neighbors, with renderings as described, to help evaluate the visual impact. The evidence provided by the applicant, when evaluated based on the criterion in the zoning code, is well below the level required by the code to justify approving this application.
From: Lois Stanley To: Branham, Jon Cc: MCCARTHY_ANDREW & HESTER Subject: Kulas Variance Request & Effect on Heritage Trees Date: Monday, February 1, 2021 11:07:34 AM
Caution: This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not open any unexpected attachments or links.
Good morning John,
Heritage trees will be lost if the Kulas' variance is granted. Immediately adjacent to the Kulas lot line are several heritage trees owned by the Winslows. These trees are important to and valued by Sheridan Road residents.
The ZBA needs to see the location of these trees on a site plan in order to understand the impact on these trees should the variance be granted. Ideally, this site plan would show the area where underground roots are located, i.e. under the trees' canopy. It is unfair to the members of the ZBA to require them to make a decision without this vital information.
As the ZBA members are aware, they have a responsibility to consider and protect the interests of every Kenilworth resident, as reflected in the Kenilworth Zoning Ordinance. Our Zoning Ordinance translates residents' desire for the spacious suburban ideal into clear numerical terms. The Kulas' request substantially reduces the open area residents put into law for their joint benefit.
Sheridan Road has particular importance and significance as it represents Kenilworth to the many people who pass by. There is value to each Kenilworth resident in maintaining Sheridan Road as open and spacious as was determined in enacting our zoning ordinance.
Finally, the first hurdle to obtaining a variance is to show hardship.There was no hardship shown.Toward the end of the last meeting, Member McCarthy directed the Kulas' attention to the ordinance. I believe it is in the Village's best interest for that requirement to be clarified at the outset of the next meeting.
Thank you for considering my request for a plan detailing the location of the Winslows' heritage trees. I would appreciate it if you would forward this email to the members of the ZBA.
Respectfully,
(H) 847-256-0077 (C) 847-641-0244
ATT00002.txt ATT00003.txt ATT00004.txt
<div align="center" style="border: 2px solid #15D60F;background-color: #06578D;padding:10px;"><font color="EF2C11"><b>Caution:</b></font><font color="15D60F"> This email originated from outside of our organization. Do not open any unexpected attachments or links.</font></div><br>
Dear Jon and Vicki,
Considering the “tree removal” impact is critical.
Many trees have already been removed by the new owners, including heritage and protected trees. If proposed additions are approved, it appears that the majority of the remaining mature trees in the front (around 10-12, including a large cluster of different height evergreens and a heritage oak) will need to be removed. Neighboring properties may also lose trees.
This will have a devastating impact, altering the look and feel of the neighborhood overall and adjacent properties in particular. From different vantage points, all three houses will be clearly visible, with virtually no visual separation between 219 and 227 Sheridan. Plus, the garage additions will look very bulky when viewed from the sidewalk, road and nearby houses on both sides of Sheridan.
Unfortunately, newly planted trees will take decades to mature and provide sufficient screening.
The loss of trees may also have a significant storm water impact; each mature canopy tree can absorb hundreds of gallons of water during a single rain event. Yard flooding is a major concern for 227 Sheridan because it is lower lying.
In summary, I believe a comprehensive tree plan must be included in the evaluation process to assess the impact of the proposed major additions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alison Winslow 227 Sheridan Road
8 google.eom
419 Richmond Road Phone: 847-251-1666 Kenilworth. IL 60043 Fax: 847-251-3908
E mail: [email protected]
Application for Tree Permit 3'rT'
All trees to be removed require a Tree Permit Provide arborist's report for trees 10 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) or greater Protected trees are 10 inches DBH, but less than 18 inches DBH Heritage trees are 1 8 inches DBH or greater There is a tree replacement requirement for healthy Protected and Heritage trees
Applicant and Information
.0.vFull Name
Address: '2-t (37 $Qe.;.J«. k Telephone: 8 q) -Z/O/- 8'22') E-Mail: 4i/g1l; liZ'.L,.4((; ) l; /'f G.'/' L{,,,t Q. I C 6 L--x
ADORESS OF pRopERly FQR TREE REMOVAL. ? I (? (p C,7 e.' [ c;Pe. c,\ Q Owner Information jlf Different Than Applicant)
Full Name
.pplicant or Owner's Signature(required)
Check all that apply
.Healthy Tree Unsafe/Hazard t'/ Good Forestry Practice
List all trees to be removed. regardless of size
Location
some-conversions
6" D (Diameter) = 19" C (Circumference) 8" D ; 25" C 10" D = 31" C 16" D = 50" C 12" D = 38" C 18" D = 57" C 14" D = 44" C 20" D = 63" C
. For each tree listed above, indicate reason for removal of the tree . Provide arborist's report for trees lO.inches DBH.or greater
L= b.-e dept...:.c.J KT-tL'z o. i' '''' r'i'' '''''''
#Q- t.J Q. r( . '41 f''KC 4,'e ' $. 10- /2. / £,,..'
-/ ,J t €' b -4~-F./
\ ---'\
Species Condition
l 'a -z/ c'. ...c 4rr I '? 4...,,.-''qqc 2 . r 3
\ \ 4 r I
Healthy Tree Removal w/no other activity
Lot Redevelopment with Demolition
Lot Redevelopment without Demolition
Demolition w/out Replacement Structure
Decks and Patios
A Tree Protection Plan may be required for this application
Reviewed by:
Village of iRECEIVED OCT 2 7 2020
419 Richmond Road Phone: 847-251-1666 Kenilworth. IL 60043 Fax: 847-251 -3908
E-mail: [email protected]
Application for Tree Permit .'3 Permit # -?o -.3e7'
All trees to be removed require a Tree Permit Provide arborist's report for trees 10 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) greater Protected trees are 10 inches DBH: but less thad :18 inches DBH Heritage trees are 1 8 inches DBH or greater There is a tree replacement requirement for healthy Protected and Heritage trees
or
A,4Pk... I.<ULASO) H 0'FM ,4 I C.C. 0J'ZE-Mail:
ADDRESS OF P-0P:RW-0RTREE REM0""- '2 / '::} '( /y£p/b ,4 h.J 12-b
Owner Information (if Different Than Applicant)
Full Name
Address
Telephone
E-Mail:
Applicant or Owner certifies that the Diameter at breast height (DBH) ot each tree given in this applicatjgl) is accurate
i)plidant or 6wri;ils Si3hature (required)
Type of Activity/ Reason for Removal
Check all that apply
Trees To be Removed
List all trees to be removed, regardless of size
Diameter = Circumference divided by 3.14(Pi) some conversions: 6" D(Diameter) = 19" C(Circumference) 8" D : 25" C 10" D = 31" C 16" D = 50" C 12" D = 38" C 18" D = 57" C 14" D = 44" C 20" D = 63" C
8
e For each tree listed above, indicate reason for removal of the tree Provide arborist's report for trees 10 inches DBH or greater
4'. .,.... aGe ),. 4 k\. {-jev
4o ' .7xh.'C-
Species Condition Location
(front, side, rear vard) /
l \7 2 3 4 5 6 Conversion of distance around tree (Circumference) to Diameter of tree:
A Tree Protection Plan may be required for this application
)b c<a. ' } - D.,,bDate
Dead, Diseased , Hazardous or Good Practices Removal Fee No Fee
Healthy Tree Removal w/no other activity Lot Redevelopment with Demolition $700
Lot Redevelopment without Demolition $600
Demolition w/out Replacement Structure Lot Improvements:
House Additions $425
Decksand Patios $200
Irrigation Systems $200
Total:
SUNRISES'lREl£CARE 1 1 0 N. Miciloth.ian Road 1.1a's,vtll OI'xl ''iQi\ro o (I s, I I, (1;o0 4..'7
B4.7)Q.56'-B738 8 a.'z)o ] 3--9 84.6 Fax.
October 09, 2020
219 Sheridan Road,
Kenilworth, IL 60043
After inspecting the tree it appears to be declining. With the proposed planting and other work
proposed in the area near the tree wlllcause the further decline of the tree. This tree may not tolerate the work. If you have any questions feelfree to contact me
ThankYou
A quorum was present.
Other Recorded as in Attendance:
Agenda Item II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting of September 9, 2019 were placed before the members.
Member Hinkamp made a motion to approve the September 9, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as presented and Member Peterson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken and the September 9, 2019 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as pr...
Building & Planning Manager
General Observations
Strict covenants were established to ensure appropriate development, including uniform front setbacks, uniform side yard setbacks, high quality materials and architecture, and an overall neighborhood character and “rhythm”.9F
Specific Observations (orgainized based on application)

Documents

Village of