Zoning Board of Appeals

APPROVED MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS September 24, 2012 1. Call to Order Chairman Decker called the meeting to order in the Terrace Room of Village Hall, 1225 Cedar Lane, at 7:40 PM. On roll call, present were: Members Craig, Menn, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield, and Chairman Decker (6). Member Lown was absent (1). A quorum was present. Village staff present included J. Maisch, Zoning Administrator and Code Enforcement Official, and S. Seiden, Recorder. Steven Farwell, the property owner of 2154 Crabtree Lane, also was present. 2. Review of Minutes Member Craig moved, seconded by Member Robicsek, to approve the minutes of the August 27, 2012 Northbrook Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) meeting without corrections. On a voice vote, the motion carried. 3. General Public Comments There were no general comments from the public. 4. Public Hearing and Consideration of Petition Chairman Decker announced that the docket would first be heard in the public hearing portion of the meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the docket would occur immediately following the hearing, during the regular meeting. As required by state statute, the hearing notice for Docket Number 12-Z-7 was published in the September 8, 2012 Northbrook Star. DOCKET NO. 12-Z-7-- Petition by Steve and Monica Pulver for 1) A variation to reduce the required west interior side yard from 6-feet to 4-feet, 9 ¾-inches and 2) A variation to reduce the combined side yard requirement (25% of the lot width) from 16.77-feet to 11.92-feet on the property commonly known as 2144 Crabtree Lane. (PREI No. 04-09-208-015) The variations from Sections 3- 110C(1)(b)(2)(i) and 3-110C(1)(b)(2)(ii) of the Zoning Code are requested to construct a two-story home addition. Chairman Decker confirmed that the neighbors adjoining 2144 Crabtree had been notified regarding the petition. He then swore in Mr. and Mrs. Pulver, as well as Mr. Farwell, the neighbor who resides immediately to the west of the Pulvers. Mr. and Mrs. Pulver presented their petition. Their lot is “pie-shaped,” tapering from 70-feet wide in the front to 55-feet wide in the rear. They have a split-level home with a one-car attached garage. The petitioners proposed demolishing their existing garage and brick porch and replacing them with a family room, laundry room, powder room, and a two-car garage. They also intended to expand their kitchen towards the rear of the property. A second floor addition over the proposed garage and family room was included as part of the proposed project and consisted of a master suite and an additional bedroom.  Page 2 Minutes of the September 24, 2012 Northbrook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Mr. and Mrs. Pulver explained that a structural engineer had determined that it would be more economical for them to demolish their garage and rear room than to repair the existing structure. Specifically, they described cracks in the floor, a flat and leaking roof, and the gas meter being inappropriately located inside the garage. The petitioners also characterized the existing garage as a “safety hazard” in that children could easily climb through the second-floor windows to access the roof on top of the garage. Mr. and Mrs. Pulver asserted that they took their neighbors, the Farwells, into account with the design of their two-story addition by tucking back the west elevation behind the garage. According to the petitioners, their plan, if and when realized, would elevate their house to “market standard,” as well as increase the curb appeal of their home and the surrounding Highlands neighborhood. Member Robicsek commented that the house currently did not conform to the Zoning Code in that the home encroaches on the west side yard. While acknowledging that the petitioners did not build their home, he asked why further encroachment to the west was necessary. Member Robicsek also suggested that the addition of windows might enhance the appearance of the proposed west elevation. Mr. and Mrs. Pulver responded that it would not be practical for them to rebuild a one-car garage. Similarly, they also perceived a tandem garage as not a reasonable option. Given that they want to bring their home to market standards, the proposed garage is the smallest two-car garage that they could build, according to the petitioners. They explained that the current footprint of the home was not viable to meet their building requirements. Upon questioning, Mr. Farwell noted that a few, albeit not many, one-car garages existed in the neighborhood. He raised the concept of a “daylight plane” and noted how zoning boards in other communities respected this concept. Member Menn explained that many local municipalities enforced a daylight plane rule, with setback requirements based on the angle of the sun, as a result of the recent “McMansion” building trend. However, Northbrook was not among those municipalities. Ms. Maisch clarified that while the Northbrook Zoning Code did not explicitly address this issue, a potential decrease in morning sunlight due to the height and proximity of the proposed addition was a factor that the ZBA could consider since the applicant was seeking Zoning Code relief. Mr. Farwell described the “emotional value” to his family of sunlight streaming into the kitchen, main bath, and family room all located on the east side of their home. He contended that the proposed second story addition would completely block their early morning sunlight. Chairman Decker explained that the purview of the ZBA included lots and construction, as opposed to individual homeowners and their particular circumstances. He also noted that the ZBA had not addressed this specific issue in the last several years. Member Robicsek asked if other possible designs had been considered and suggested that an alternative design might at least obviate the daylight issue and address the “monotonous-looking” west elevation. Member Menn asked the petitioners if they were willing to work with the Village to make the west elevation more aesthetically pleasing, to which they responded “yes.” The petitioners also noted that the existing trees, some of which would be removed as a result of the proposed construction, and a treehouse belonging to the Farwells already blocked sunlight on the west side of the Farwell’s home.  Page 3 Minutes of the September 24, 2012 Northbrook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Member Craig cited the current trend to build larger homes. He suggested that it might be preferable for the Farwells if Mr. and Mrs. Pulver updated their current home, rather than them or a new owner tearing down the existing structure and building an even larger home that might be out of character with the neighborhood. Member Schofield concurred. Mr. Farwell reiterated the “social cost” that he and his family perceived from the proposed addition and their request to alter the design. He also noted his reluctance about coming before the ZBA regarding this issue. Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Pulver maintained that they had taken the Farwells into consideration by tucking back the west elevation behind the garage in their design plan. Member Menn moved, seconded by Member Robicsek, to close the public hearing. On a voice vote, the motion carried. While Chairman Decker empathized with the Farwells, he noted that neighbors frequently accommodate one another and Mr. and Mrs. Pulver expressed their willingness to add architectural features to their proposed west elevation. Therefore, he reluctantly favored the application. Member Menn observed that the area in question would receive virtually no sunlight from September through mid-May because the sun is lower in the sky during those months. Therefore, he concluded that the daylight issue was relevant only in the summer. While he was sensitive to the trend of building “behemoths,” Member Menn also favored the petition because it represented “the least of all evils” for the Farwells. Member Craig concurred, explaining that a worse alternative might be a new owner tearing down the existing structure and building an even larger home that is architecturally inconsistent with the neighborhood. Member Menn commented that the new design represented a significant improvement from what was currently there, acknowledging the difficulty of adding on to a split-level home. He thought that the architect had done a “tasteful job.” Member Schofield noted that the existing garage must come down due to structural issues and he agreed with the petitioners that it did not make sense to rebuild a one-car garage. He also cited the trend of building taller homes. Consequently, Member Schofield perceived this application, with the addition of architectural details on the west elevation, as the best solution. Accordingly, Member Menn moved, seconded by Member Robicsek, to accept the proposed variation requests by Steve and Monica Pulver for a 1) variation to reduce the required west interior side yard from 6-feet to 4-feet, 9 ¾-inches and 2) variation to reduce the combined side yard requirement (25% of the lot width) from 16.77-feet to 11.92-feet on the property commonly known as 2144 Crabtree Lane, subject to the following conditions: That the addition be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans dated August 29, 2012 and reviewed by the ZBA on September 24, 2012. That a minimum of two additional windows and architectural features and/or details (i.e., shutters) must be added to the west elevation. The motion carried by the following roll call vote. Ayes: Members Craig, Menn, Pick, Robicsek, Schofield, and Chairman Decker (6).  Page 4 Minutes of the September 24, 2012 Northbrook Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Chairman Decker thanked Mr. and Mrs. Pulver, as well as Mr. Farwell for their professional conduct throughout the hearing. He suggested that Mr. Farwell might want to pursue the daylight plane concept in Northbrook through another public forum. 5. Old Business There was no old business. 6. New Business There was no new business. 7. Adjournment There being no further business, Member Menn moved, seconded by Member Pick, to adjourn the meeting. On a voice vote, the motion carried. Chairman Decker adjourned the meeting at 8:25 PM. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Stacy J. Seiden Recorder