Lake County Gazette

Village of Libertyville Zoning Board of Appeals met November 13.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

Board Member Flores moved, seconded by Board Member Steffe, to appoint Board Member Oakley as temporary Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion carried 5 - 0.

The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was called to order by Chairman Walter Oakley at 7:03 p.m. at the Village Hall.

Members present: Chairman Walter Oakley, Amy Flores, Matthew Krummick, Richard Pyter, and Eric Steffe.

Members absent: Chairman Kurt Schultz and Mark Moore.

A quorum was established.

Village Staff present: John Spoden, Director of Community Development; David Smith, Senior Planner; and Jeff Cooper, Village Engineer.

Board Member Krummick moved, seconded by Board Member Steffe, to approve the October 23, 2017, Zoning Board of Appeals minutes.

Motion carried 5 - 0.

Old Business:

ZBA 17-01 Stacey Peterson, Applicant

330 and 332 Brainerd Avenue

Request is for a variation to Zoning Code Section 14-4.1 to reduce the minimum required lot width for a nonconforming lot of record from 75% of the lot width required in an R-7 District to not less than 16% (10 feet wide) of the lot width required in an R-7 District order to construct a single family attached development in an R-7, Single Family Attached Residential District.

ZBA 17-03 Stacey Peterson, Applicant

330 and 332 Brainerd Avenue

Request is for a variation to change the garage door orientation for single family attached dwellings for property in an R-7, Single Family Attached Residential District.

Mr. David Smith, Senior Planner, introduced the requested variations. Mr. Smith stated that the petitioner was before the Zoning Board of Appeals two times previously requesting approval for two (2) variations including a reduction of the minimum required lot width and to change the garage door orientation for single family attached dwellings in order to construct two single family attached structures for a combined total of four (4) dwelling units for property located in an R-7, Single Family Attached Residential District located at 330 and 332 Brainerd Avenue.

Mr. Smith stated that the Village Attorney David Pardys would like to offer additional background regarding the subject site and the requested variations.

Mr. David Pardys, Village Attorney, stated that in respect to the first variation request for the minimum lot width, these two lots historically did have two buildings each with two dwelling units. He stated that in 1976, the Village Board approved a variation and the nature of the request for the variation was not particularly clear in accordance to the Village files. He stated that they initially attempted to rezone the property to R-8, Multiple Family Residential District. The Village Board at that time decided to not approve the change to R-8, but instead granted a variation to allow four dwelling units on the two parcels with the condition that if the structures were to be reconstructed that they could only be reconstructed in exactly the same spot on the parcels.

Mr. Pardys stated that since that time when the variation was granted in 1976, the Village views the property now as two separate lots. He stated that one of the subject lots would be considered a flag lot today as it has a very narrow lot width. He stated that since the flag lot existed before the establishment of the flag lot restriction, it is today considered a legal non-conforming lot of record. This allows the petitioner to make a request under the Village’s Zoning Code Section regarding nonconforming lots that can be built upon a lot of record that is not less than 75% of the width of the current code requirement for lot width if platted new after the effective date of the current Zoning Code. He stated that the variation request by the petitioner tonight is to go from 75% of the current code requirement of 60 feet to approximately the current width of the lot as measured 30 feet back from the front property line which is within the stem portion of the flag lot. He stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals has a right under the Variation Standards to review this request pursuant to Article 16 in the Zoning Code and can impose conditions upon any recommendation for approval if they deem it appropriate.

Mr. Mike Peterson, applicant, 521 Lange Court, stated that he presents to Board of Directors for other companies, but never has needed to present to the Village. He stated that it has been a long time since the start of this process, about two years. He presented a power point photo of the old house that existed on the property before it was demolished. He stated that the old house was not livable. He stated that after the owners had passed away, the old house went on the market for sale and remained on the market for about one (1) year. He stated that in February of 2016 they were accepted an offer for the property by the estate. He said that no one else initially put in an offer for the subject property.

Mr. Peterson stated that he is from Libertyville and has raised his children here as well. He stated that in July of 2016 they were awarded the property. He stated that their goal is to put two high end townhomes in the front and two high end townhomes in the back. He stated that he and his family intends to live in one of the rear located townhomes which shows that this is not just a commercial venture. He stated that they hired Tim Archibald to be their architect for the project. He stated that after they started to work with Village Staff on the project there was a challenge discovered as part of that process and that was the initial Village interpretation that restricted any development from the rear lot. He stated that his wife Stacey then did additional research on the property. He stated that after thousands of dollars spent in legal fees by October of 2016 they were able to eventually determine that the subject site is a legal non-conforming lot of record that could be built upon.

Mr. Peterson stated that since the zoning interpretation has been resolved on the lots buildability there have been a couple of meetings with the Village. He stated that Tim Archibald initially presented some alternative site plans to the Village at the first meeting. He stated that one of the initial plans was to request a variation to increase the maximum permitted density by building three dwelling units on the rear lot but they have since rescinded that proposal. He stated that they then received feedback from the Zoning Board of Appeals without making a formal vote.

Mr. Peterson stated that they then began to use Tom Miles, Professional Engineer, to produce the civil engineering plans. He stated that they were then confronted with a lot of engineering challenges as the engineering plans developed. He stated that one of the key issues was lot coverage but that they have been able to stay under the maximum permitted lot coverage so far. He said that the issue now boils down to the width of a driveway and a grass strip. He stated that the existing house that was on the front lot has been demolished and donated to charity. He stated that he is requesting that the ZBA give a positive recommendation for both Variations being requested tonight. He stated that it has been a long journey and that they have worked closely with Village Staff during the process. He stated that he is happy that there are five (5) members present on the ZBA board tonight instead of only four (4) that were present in September.

Mr. Peterson stated that they have spent thousands of dollars to get the legal record for the subject site. He stated that he has spent $50,000 on architectural and engineering drawings. He stated that this is a clear indication of his commitment to do something great on this property. He stated that they have had a willingness to do engineering work to a level that is not typically done for a variation application. He stated that he understands that more engineering work will be necessary for the building permit application. He stated that they have reduced the size of both the front and back dwelling units in response to the comments made at the last public hearing. He stated that they feel that they have the right mix of unit size and lot coverage. He stated that he recognizes that Village Staff has spent a considerable amount of time on this project as well. He stated that they are going to present a plan option that meets every single code that the Village has that is actually practiced.

Mr. Peterson stated that there are three (3) stakeholders involved in this project. He stated that the stakeholders include (1) the community, (2) them as the applicant/property owners, and (3) the Zoning Board of Appeals. He stated that they and the Village are in 98% agreement and that it boils down to one issue and that is the width of the proposed driveway and grass strip in the center of the driveway. He stated that as the hearing proceeds tonight that we should talk about the facts objectively, and that we should talk about the code that was written for a reason, and that we should talk about our actions which include the precedent in the Village.

Mr. Tim Archibald, architect for the petitioner, presented the current design proposal for the project. He stated that the subject driveway is ten (10) feet wide and runs in an east-west direction. He stated that it has three (3) components including the three (3’) foot wide grass strip in the center, three and one-half (3 1⁄2’) foot asphalt pavement on either side of the grass strip and on the west end towards Brainerd Avenue is the by-pass zone portion of the driveway so that if there is a need for one car to pull into the drive while another car is pulling out the by- pass zone will allow for that. He stated that the by-pass zone is proposed as an alternative to a two way driveway for its entire length.

Mr. Archibald stated that the proposal includes two residential buildings with each building containing two townhome units. He stated that each building is on its own separate lot of record. He stated that their proposed plan is in compliance with the building coverage, lot coverage, building height, setback code requirements, and unit orientation except for the rear building’s garage doors which face the street and is one of the two variations being requested.

Mr. Archibald stated that they have worked for a long time with Village staff on this project. He stated that although they have not always agreed with everything, the relationship has been quite collaborative. He stated that at the September 11, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting there were 19 review comments that needed to be addressed in order to receive support from the Planning and Engineering Divisions. He stated that the number of comments have now been reduced to three (3). He stated that the driveway configuration where it meets Brainerd Avenue has been designed so that it can accommodate vehicles including a fire truck. He stated that the onsite water detention strategies have been addressed to satisfy the Engineering Division. He stated that the storm sewer connection and overflow strategies have been addressed to satisfy the Engineering Division. He stated that their engineer was instrumental in defining the storm water capacity as being adequate. He stated the engineering work has been exceptionally detailed especially for this stage in the application process and not easily done due to the small site. He stated that the civil engineering plans have been revised to address the concerns of the Village staff. He stated that the civil engineering drawings are approaching 100% complete.

Mr. Archibald stated that they agree with the Village that a ten (10) foot wide driveway with the by-pass at the west end driveway is acceptable. He stated that the disagreement between them and Village Staff is the proposed use of the grass strip along the 10 foot wide driveway. He stated that they presented the 10 foot wide driveway with the center grass strip to Village Staff in October. He stated that the October plan included a three and one half foot (3 1⁄2’) wide grass strip. He stated that that plan was sent to the Village’s traffic consultant CivilTech Engineering for review. He stated that CivilTech stated that they didn’t necessarily like the grass strip because they question the ability to maintain the grass strip ribbon due to the northern winter climate but if a grass strip is used they recommend that the grass strip be three (3) feet wide and the two paved strips be 3.5 feet wide each, altogether making a 10 foot wide driveway. He stated that in response to the CivilTech review they redesigned the driveway and reduced the size of the building. He stated that the current design follows those guidelines by CivilTech who indicated that it is not ideal but it is acceptable. He stated that there are a number of examples in the Village where grass strips are used in driveways. He stated that although the Village may be in a transition as to how grass strips should be regulated, they are currently allowed and have been installed in other multi-family developments in the past. He stated that the precedent has been established and the grass strips have been approved in the past.

Mr. Archibald stated that there is no vehicular tire overlap in the proposed grass strip per the AutoTurn analysis provided so maintaining the grass strip will be easier to maintain as vehicles shouldn’t have to drive over the grass strip portion of the driveway. He stated that in their previous submittal for the September 11, 2017 ZBA meeting the plan showed a grass strip area of 1,270 square feet in area which included the grass strip along the driveway and within the motor court between the two structures. He stated that the current plan shows that the grass strip areas have been reduced by 1,000 square foot. He stated that they made up for the grass strip reduction in the driveway by reducing the size of the dwelling units, especially in the rear building. He stated that the building size reduction was a painful thing to do when the attempt is to create high end units.

Mr. Archibald stated that he understands that there is a perception that grass strips are a high maintenance issue and that property owners may eventually replace the damaged grass with something that is impermeable anyway. He stated that this is why that as part of this application proposal there will be covenants and restrictions as part of a Home Owner’s Association that will be required to maintain the grass strip as a permeable surface. He stated that aesthetically, asphalt only drives aren’t as pleasing to look at. He stated that the grass strip helps the site plan to remain below the maximum allowed lot coverage for the project.

Mr. Archibald stated that the north property line’s proximity to the northern edge of the proposed driveway is approximately six (6) inches. He stated that they understood that this would be acceptable by Jeff Cooper, Village Engineer. He stated that it is his understanding from a letter by Jeff Cooper that a ten foot wide driveway is preferable over the eight (8) foot wide drive option due to the anticipated fence line along the northern property line as it would minimize the risk of vehicular tire rutting or damaging vehicular side view mirrors. He stated that CivilTech did not address the issue of the driveway and its proximity to the north property line. He stated that if necessary the fence line’s location can be adjusted to address those concerns about the proximity of the driveway.

Mr. Archibald stated that they can address any issue of any discrepancy between the various plan sheets as pointed out in the Engineering Division review comments. He stated that in response to the comment on side patio doors not having a stoop or patio, the doors are approximately six (6”) inches above grade and these openings are intended to address ventilation and light into the house and not intended as an opening to access a very shallow side yard area. He stated that if the grass strip in the center of the driveway is an issue that cannot be agreed to then the alternative is the 8 foot wide drive with no grass strip. He stated that the by-pass lane would still be in place and there would be a greater separation between the north edge of the driveway from the north property line. He stated that the 8 foot wide driveway plan would include no changes to the architecture or building footprints. He stated that the Petersons are open to either driveway option and both options are not in violation of the Village’s regulations.

Mr. David Pardys, Village Attorney, stated the Mr. Peterson made a statement earlier as to the legality of constructing a home on the subject property. He stated that this property has a difficult history. He stated that initially when it was determined that these are two separate lots, the determination as to whether a building can be constructed on the flag lot was discussed. He stated that they had to determine that the flag lot is a legal non-conforming lot of record before allowing them to do anything on that lot. He stated that if it is not a legal non-conforming lot then they cannot construct anything on it. He stated that it is clearly a non-conforming lot and in order to get to the point that it is a buildable legal non-conforming lot of record, it has to be shown that it was subdivided and configured prior before the Zoning Code would have prohibited such a configuration. He stated that this is what Mrs. Peterson’s research accomplished. He stated that she showed the Village deeds that were dated before the code required a certain lot width.

Mr. Pardys stated that once it is established that the lot in question is determined to be a legal non-conforming lot of record then the Zoning Code Section 14-4 will allow construction on legal non-conforming lots of record so long as the lot in question has a lot width of at least 75% of the current code requirement. He stated that if it is a legal non-conforming lot of record that met the 75% lot width requirement they could apply for a building permit without a lot width variation. However, the lot in question does not meet the 75% so there is then the next hurdle to go through which is to ask for a variation from the limitation set forth in Zoning Code Section 14-4 regarding legal non-conforming lots regarding the 75% lot width limitation. He stated that the petitioner has the legal right to ask for the variation. He stated that under the Village Board authorized Variations in Section 16 the petitioner has the right to request a Variation from Section 14-4.1 related to the minimum width required for legal non-conforming lots of record. He stated that the subject flag lot as it is being considered today requires such a variation in order for it to be built upon.

Mr. Archibald stated that he concurs with Mr. Pardys’ clarification and that the request is a variation on lot width and it is a variation request that Village Staff supports. He stated that the rear units have their garage doors face the front and this is the second variation request. He stated that because the garage doors face the motor court that this configuration makes the most sense and that this request is also supported by Staff. He stated that the proposal can work and that Village Staff says that it can work.

Mr. James Quirke, 338 Brainerd Avenue, asked if the utility pole will be taken down on the north side of the driveway. He asked how far from the property line will they build the development. He asked for clarification of the proposed fence location. Mr. Archibald described the setbacks that the structures will have from the property lines. He stated that the front building will have a fifteen feet setback from the property line separating Mr. Quirke’s property and subject site. He stated that there will be a six inch separation between the proposed driveway and the north (side) property line and that the proposed fence will be located in that six inch space but not beyond the front yard setback.

Mr. James Engdahl, 234 West Maple Avenue, asked where they will put the snow. Mr. Archibald described where snow will be moved to on site.

Mr. Engdahl stated that he is concerned about the placement of the snow as his property abuts the subject property along its south property line. He asked how the storm water will be managed. Mr. Archibald described the proposed storm water management system for the project. He stated that there will be on site detention to store storm water underground.

Mr. Tom Miles, civil engineer for the petitioner, 28955 West Rt. 173, Antioch, IL., stated that they are proposing three or four 27” corrugated metal pipes for the storm water detention facility infrastructure that will be buried underground. He stated that the water will be collected in storm sewer system and contained in the underground detention storage facility. He stated that the water will then be discharged out to the storm sewer in Brainerd Avenue.

Mr. Engdahl asked how many gallons of water the detention facility can hold. Mr. Miles stated that the capacity of the storm water detention facility complies with the regulation.

Mr. Engdahl asked if the site will have a rain garden. Mr. Archibald stated that it will not have a rain garden.

Mr. Engdahl asked if the civil engineer plans were signed off by a certified Professional Engineer. Mr. Archibald responded in the affirmative.

Mr. David Forrester, 302 West Maple Avenue, stated that his property is located just to the south of the proposed development. He stated that the report indicates that the natural overland flow travels from west to east but that the storm water is directed to the south which is his property. He stated that this past May or June there were a lot of storm water issues in the Village and there were a lot of problems along Maple Avenue including flooded basements. He stated that it makes more sense if the storm water management took the water in the same direction as the existing natural flow of the land.

Mr. Forrester asked what the location of the storm water detention facility is in relation to his property and was concerned if it would ever overflow and impact his property. Mr. Miles indicated that location of the underground storm water detention storage on an exhibit. He stated that there is no storm sewer connection to the east so they had to design to go west towards Brainerd Avenue right of way. He stated that it is approximately five (5’) feet from the southern property line. He stated that if there is an overflow it will go to the east above ground.

Mr. Archibald stated that the gravity feed in the storm water management system will eventually take it to Brainerd Avenue’s sewer system.

Mr. Vince Arpino, 109 Maple Avenue, stated that Mr. Engdahl is concerned about the water coming back onto his property. He stated that he has seen a substantial amount of storm water collecting at the end of Maple Avenue to the point of the storm sewer covers popping off and noted that to the Engineering Division. He stated that the storm sewer had backed up and had an impact on the sump pump. He stated that the house he recently had built on Maple Avenue is at a lower topographical elevation and shouldn’t have a storm water runoff impact on the neighboring properties. He stated that he is concerned about the storm water management for this particular proposed project and its potential impact along Maple Avenue.

Mr. Archibald stated that the Engineering design work shows that the water is collected at the inlets and controls it. He stated that the on-site perimeter topographical elevations are higher which helps to guide the storm water to the inlets which then brings it to the storm water detention storage which is couple with two forms of back up overflow.

Board Member Pyter stated that the primary issue seems to be the width of the lot.

Mr. John Spoden, Director of Community Development, stated that the lot width is one of the Variations that the applicant is requesting. He stated that the lot width is measured at the front yard setback and in this case the measurement is 10 feet.

Board Member Pyter asked what the minimum required lot width should be. Mr. Smith stated that the minimum required lot width is not less than 75% of 60 feet which is 45 feet.

Mr. Archibald stated that the Zoning Code measures lot width at the 30 foot setback line. He stated that the stem portion of the flag lot is a smaller percentage of the lot as whole. He stated that the wider area where the units are physically located is the larger portion of the lot. He stated that the lot width variation request is reasonable.

Board Member Pyter asked if the grass strip does not work out is the petitioner asking for permission to put a different material in the grass strip area within the driveway. Mr. Peterson said that were not seeking permission to replace the grass. He stated that the ZBA has a really important choice to make. He stated that they did not want the grass strip to begin with. He stated that their optional proposal include an 8 foot wide driveway with no grass strip. He stated that with either driveway plan the architecture is the same. He said that the 8 foot wide drive will work because the average width of a vehicle is 5.5’ to 6’ feet. He said that it would look better as well.

Board Member Pyter stated that a gravel approach would get messy especially in the winter due to plowing. He stated that the applicant is committed to grass if the grass strip is installed.

Mr. Peterson stated that they are sticking to grass as a material between the two pavement strips. He stated that there will be a Home Owners Association that will require routine maintenance of the grass strip.

Board Member Krummick asked for clarification of the overland flow route. Mr. Miles stated that in its natural state the property slopes down from the Brainerd Avenue end of the subject site towards the east end approximately five or six feet. He stated that there will be a storm sewer that can collect storm water and feed that into the proposed underground detention infrastructure where it will then be piped out to the Brainerd Avenue storm sewer. He stated that the proposed storm sewer system is designed to be in compliance with the Village of Libertyville design standards. He stated that the planned overflow for the site in those cases when storm water would be more than what the proposed detention could handle is located towards the east end of the site which corresponds to the existing natural state of the topography today.

Board Member Krummick asked how much vegetative buffer exist between the subject site and the parking lot to the east and asked who owns the vegetative area. Mr. Archibald stated that the First Presbyterian Church owns the land located to the east of the subject site including the green space and the parking lot.

Board Member Krummick stated that the overland flow route appears to go directly into the pavement of the adjacent parking lot.

Mr. Miles stated that there is a grass strip between the parking lot and the subject site that is about 15 feet wide.

Board Member Krummick asked about the setback distance of the building located at the northwest corner. Mr. Archibald stated that the front building will have about a 35 foot setback from the Brainerd Avenue right of way property line. He stated that the both buildings will have about a 10 foot setback from their relative north (side yard) property lines and each building will have a little more than a twenty-foot (20’) setback from their relative rear property lines.

Board Member Krummick asked for clarification as to the compromises the applicant has made thus far in the process. He stated that he understood that an earlier option had been consideration for a total of five dwelling units and asked why they had given consideration to five.

Mr. Peterson stated that consideration for five dwelling units was initially driven by its commercial benefits. He stated that they gave up on five after discussions with Staff on this issue.

Board Member Krummick stated that the concession appears to have been the reduction of square footage.

Mr. Peterson stated that within the last 90 days they have made concession on the square footage for the four dwelling unit plan, both the front building and the rear building.

Board Member Krummick asked the petitioner to clarify what they mean by concessions. Mr. Archibald stated that they sought a balance between the reducing the grass areas and the size of the buildings. He stated that part of that calculation was considering how much to reduce the size of the buildings versus how much to reduce the size of the driveway and ultimately they did both. He stated that about 1,000 square feet came out of the back two dwelling units.

Board Member Krummick stated that there were Staff review comments regarding exterior sliding glass doors are proposed without stoops to step out onto and asked how this will be addressed.

Mr. Archibald stated that those doors in question are approximately five to six inches above grade. He stated that these doors face the side yards and the side yard setbacks are shallow and not meant for patios. He stated that the primary purpose of those sliding glass doors located on the sides of the structures is more about getting natural light and ventilation into the center portion of the homes.

Board Member Krummick asked if the sliding glass doors were operable what the occupants would step outside onto. Mr. Archibald stated that they would step out onto grass.

Board Member Krummick stated that he questions the practicality of using an eight (8’) foot wide driveway. He stated that he disagrees with the statement that most vehicles are 50 to 60 inches wide. He stated that he researched the width of a Tahoe and it is close to 83 inches wide. He stated that he used to live in a home on Stewart Avenue that had an eight foot wide driveway and it was difficult to maneuver a vehicle on it. He stated that he often rutted out the right side of the drive. He stated that a ten (10’) foot wide drive is better as there will be multiple vehicles coming in and out of this site.

Board Member Krummick stated that the proposed plan appears to have maxed out the site and it makes him question whether the proposed project is appropriate for this particular site. He stated that he questions if the proposed density is appropriate for the site or not. He stated that he understands that the zoning district is R-7 and that it is a transitional area but was concerned whether the proposed massing of the buildings is a proper transition.

Mr. Archibald stated that he believes that the proposed density is appropriate for the site. He stated that there is a strong trend to living downtown and in multi-dwelling units and more density. He stated that his is a good trend. He stated that the guidelines for regulating bulk are established to allow developments to go up to a certain point.

Mr. Archibald stated that it is great to see this neighborhood in transition as it is in the downtown. He stated that it is next to a public parking garage and there are several buildings in the vicinity that will redevelop and transition. He stated that this is an important project to set the precedent.

Board Member Krummick asked for clarification as to what precedent the applicant is attempting to create. Mr. Archibald stated that the precedent is density related as there are more people who are living downtown for good reasons as the downtown is situated so that people can walk to a variety of establishments and amenities. He stated that there is good reason to support a higher downtown population density as long as the storm water can be managed with the proper infrastructure. He stated that the variations being requested are not about the density but rather related to the odd flag lot shape parcel.

Board Member Krummick stated that it is the unique lot that has triggered a substantial number of questions thus far.

Mr. Archibald stated that it is the number of questions and the uniquely shaped lot has caused he and his client to work so long and hard on the project.

Board Member Krummick asked how the trash would be handled. Mr. Archibald stated that each home owner will maintain their trash bins inside their garage and then taken out to the street curb on trash pick-up day.

Board Member Krummick asked how four different trash bins and four different recycling containers will be stacked along the street curb. Mr. Archibald stated that the exact placement of the trash and recycle bins has not been finalized as of yet.

Board Member Steffe stated that he foresees the trash bins being placed in the driveway, especially in the winter time which could potentially block ingress and egress and might create a safety issue.

Board Member Steffe asked what the elevation is of the subject property relative to the properties to the north and south. Mr. Miles stated that the property to the north is at a topographical elevation between 712 and 713. He stated that the front building will have a top of foundation elevation of 714 so the front building will be anywhere between one to two feet higher than the elevation of the property to the north and between one to two feet higher than the existing elevation of the property to the south. He stated however that the building to the south has a top of foundation elevation of 716. He stated that the proposed dwelling units will be lower when looking at the top of the foundation elevation.

Board Member Steffe asked what kind of maintenance will be required for storm water management system in order to ensure that it doesn’t get backed up. Mr. Miles stated that a maintenance plan will be implemented and administered by the Home Owner’s Association. He stated that the plan will include Spring and Fall checks of the system and inspection of the grates, etc.

Board Member Steffe asked how the Village can ensure that the maintenance of the storm water management system is done on schedule. Mr. Jeff Cooper, Village Engineer, stated that it is a challenge for the Village to enforce H.O.A. covenants and restrictions. He stated that many times a Village response is triggered when a private system fails is reported. The Village does not have the ability to visit every private property to monitor every private system. He stated that if it is a public system then Village Staff are obligated to monitor and maintain, if it is a private system then the responsibility would be given to the property owner or it’s H.O.A. If the Village is notified that a private system is in need of repair or maintenance then the Village would work with the property owner or H.O.A. to enforce its responsibility.

Mr. Pardys stated that there is the ability to incorporate the Village’s right but not the obligation to enforce certain privately owned or maintained storm water management system maintenance issues. He stated that in these cases the Village could get its cost back and go so far as putting a lean on the property when necessary. He stated that there is a mechanism that would allow Village involvement but as a general rule most Public Works departments do not want to be involved in the maintenance of these structures.

Board Member Steffe asked what would happen if the storm water management system backed up and overflowed and then flooded the neighboring properties to the north and south. Mr. Miles stated that the overflow routes will be at a lower elevation than the adjacent properties and there should not be a flooding impact upon the neighboring properties.

Mr. Cooper stated that the Village Engineering Staff review civil engineering plans in order to determine that in the worst case scenario the over land flow will still be routed safely off site.

Board Member Steffe stated that the theory of the storm water management system is intended to store storm water and then slowly release it over time. Mr. Miles concurred with Board Member Steffe’s supposition.

Mr. Archibald stated that the maximum permitted height allowed is 37 feet for the structures and they are proposing structures at a height of 32 feet. He stated that the front lot is large enough to permit up to three dwelling units by code but they decided that three units on the front lot would not be appropriate. He stated that they could be closer to the side property lines than what their plan shows, they could be closer per code. He stated that there are areas that are not being maxed out although they are maxing out on the lot coverage.

Board Member Krummick stated that if the structures were closer to the property lines then the lot coverage would be higher.

Mr. Archibald stated that there are key areas that are not being maxed out and this is an important balanced approach to the project.

Board Member Flores stated that she is concerned about the size and density of the project. She stated that she understands that the proposal is compliant with the maximum permitted lot coverage but that the code was written in a way that it assumes that a development would have a driveway, a building area, a front walk, and a rear patio. She stated that it should be planned that so that there is enough space to have all of those aspects to a residential property. She stated that the petition takes out the patio in order to have a bigger building; taking out a front walk and replacing it with stepping stones to make the building bigger; and to install a driveway with a grass strip in order to make the building bigger. She stated that is appears that the problem is not about the length of the grass strip up and down the driveway but more so about the size of the buildings. She stated that this plan allows only for a back stoop because the homes are too big. She stated that this plan does not allow for a concrete walk up to the front door because the building size itself is too big. She stated that she does not believe the problem is the grass strip but is instead the size of the buildings.

Board Member Flores stated that she is concerned about the comment made earlier that even with a ten (10’) foot wide driveway vehicles may have to cheat and cut across the grass strip as they maneuver in and out of the property because side view mirrors on vehicles may hit the fence to be installed along the side property line next to the driveway. She stated that it appears that not more than one square foot more of grass can be removed without exceeding the maximum permitted lot coverage. She stated that it is not the grass strip but it is the size of the buildings that constitute the problem with the plan. She stated that none of the AutoTurn exhibits show vehicles parked within the bypass apron with other vehicles attempting to enter or exit at that same time. She stated if two vehicles are exiting at the same time while another vehicle is attempting to enter from Brainerd Avenue the exiting vehicles won’t be able to get out. She stated that the proposed bypass portion of the driveway is not enough to accommodate the potential congestion that might take place during a busy period of multiple vehicles entering and leaving the site. She stated that the vehicular movement conflict will take place after a vehicle already has entered and is half way down the driveway and then will become stuck once two vehicles are facing each other head to head when someone else is trying to leave at the same time someone is entering half way down the driveway.

Mr. Archibald stated that the Village’s traffic engineer assessed the potential problem that is described by Board Member Flores and they found that the bypass zone satisfies the traffic conflict concern expressed. He stated that the backing out onto the street is not unlike resident’s backing out onto alleys in the Village today. He stated that it may be more of an issue reflective of how people live in a denser urban area like downtown Libertyville. He stated that living in downtown Libertyville people acclimate to necessary driving behavior such as looking over their shoulder before they just pull out onto another vehicular path such as the road or an alley.

Mr. Archibald stated that the design of the proposed townhomes is intended to encourage the occupants to use the roof top decks for their outdoor space in lieu of the traditional at grade patio.

Board Member Flores stated that she thinks that the architectural design is great and appreciates the modern style that it represents. She stated that her concern is the size of the structures on these particular parcels.

Mr. Archibald stated that people will be interested in buying these units who are looking for the style of living that they might not otherwise obtain. He stated that for those occupants who choose to live in these units are willing to agree to the trade-offs such as giving up larger driveways and accepting the roof top decks while giving up the at grade patios.

Chairman Oakley asked what the square footage of the proposed units would be. Mr. Archibald stated that the front two units are 2,300 square feet each and the back two units are 2,900 square feet each.

Board Member Krummick stated that he would like for the Petersons to look back at the context of the Board’s questions and understand that the questions are not different than what they ask other developers in the Village. He stated that the ZBA has to look at this project as something more than just a single family home. He stated that he hopes that the Petersons do not walk away from this meeting upset but to try to understand that the Board is looking at this project with much more substance similar to a commercial development.

Mr. Engdahl stated that he is concerned about snow removal for the subject site. He stated that the site will not be large enough to store plowed snow. He stated that he will install a fence along the north end of his property because he is not willing to accept any plowed snow from the subject site.

Mr. Archibald stated that there is a generous area to store plowed snow both at the end of the driveway and within the south yard south and southwest of the driveway, south of the front-south unit.

Mr. Engdahl stated that he does not agree with Mr. Archibald’s assessment for snow removal.

Mr. Peterson stated that he respects all of the questions that have been asked so far. He stated that they attempted to follow the letter of the code. He stated that the storm water management has been engineered with the approval of the Engineering Staff. He stated that there aren’t codes for the square footage of a dwelling unit outside of the lot coverage regulation which they comply with. He stated that they have spent a lot of time and a lot of money to best meet the needs of all three stake holders. He stated that they are asking for the ZBA vote and approval. He stated that it will be good for the community.

Chairman Oakley informed the applicant that they will need four yes votes from the ZBA for each variation request in order for the petition to move forward to the Village Board with a positive recommendation.

Mr. David Pardys, Village Attorney, asked if a motion to approve is crafted tonight is there the opportunity to incorporate conditions for approval as the DRC Staff report recommends a continuance without stipulating conditions.

Mr. John Spoden, Director of Community Development, stated that conditions for approval have not been drafted.

Mr. Peterson stated that they are seeking a vote and that they have an optional site plan with an eight (8) foot wide driveway without a grass strip and they have the option of a ten foot wide driveway with a grass strip within the drive, both options comply with the maximum permitted lot coverage regulation.

Mr. Spoden stated that there is a note in the report that Engineering Division does not support an eight (8) foot wide driveway.

Mr. Smith stated that motions for approval were not crafted in the recommendation section of the DRC Staff report and the variation requests at the beginning of the report did not specify precise dimensions.

A fourteen (14) minute recess was taken at 8:38 p.m. in order to provide the Village Attorney the opportunity to draft the motions.

Chairman Oakley call the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting back into session at 8:52 p.m.

David Pardys stated that motions for variation requests are always worded in the positive to approve and then the ZBA votes accordingly to support or not support the motion.

Mr. Pardys stated that there are two options, one is plan set dated October 13, 2017 showing the 10 foot driveway with the grass strip and the other option is plan set dated October 5, 2017 showing the eight (8) foot wide driveway. He asked the petitioner which option are they requesting the ZBA to make a motion on.

Mr. Archibald stated that they are seeking approval for the plan with the 10 foot wide driveway.

Mr. Pardys read the first motion.

Mr. Pardys stated that ZBA 17-01 is a motion to approve a variation from the requirements of Zoning Code Section 14-4.1 to allow a reduction in the required lot width of 45 feet to approximately 13.07 feet for the property located at 332 Brainerd Avenue, in accordance to the plan submitted including the final engineering plan including sheet 3 of 9 entitled, “Site Plan – 10 Foot Driveway” prepared by Infraland Consulting, LLC dated October 13, 2017.

Mr. Pardys asked the petitioner if what he read is consistent with what they are asking for. Mr. Archibald responded in the affirmative.

In the matter of ZBA 17-01, Board Member Krummick moved, seconded by Board Member Pyter, to recommend the Village Board of Trustees approve a variation from the requirements of Zoning Code Section 14-4.1 to allow a reduction in the required lot width of 45 feet to approximately 13.07 feet for the property located at 332 Brainerd Avenue, in accordance to the plan submitted including the final engineering plan including sheet 3 of 9 entitled, “Site Plan – 10 Foot Driveway” prepared by Infraland Consulting, LLC dated October 13, 2017.

Motion failed 3 - 2.

Ayes: Oakley, Pyter, Steffe

Nays: Flores, Krummick

Absent: Moore, Schultz

Mr. Pardys read the second motion.

Mr. Pardys stated that regarding ZBA 17-03 is a motion to approve a variation to change the garage door orientation for single family attached dwellings in accordance to the plans attached for property located in an R-7, Single Family Attached District at 330 and 332 Brainerd Avenue in accordance to the plans submitted.

In the matter of ZBA 17-03, Board Member Krummick moved, seconded by Board Member Pyter, to recommend the Village Board of Trustees approve a variation to change the garage door orientation for single family attached dwellings in accordance to the plans attached for property located in an R-7, Single Family Attached District at 330 and 332 Brainerd Avenue, in accordance with the plans submitted.

Motion carried 5 - 0.

Ayes: Oakley, Flores, Krummick, Pyter, Steffe

Nays: None

Absent: Moore, Schultz

New Business: None.

Communications And Discussion:

Board Member Steffe moved, seconded by Board Member Pyter, to approve the 2018 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting dates.

Motion carried 5 - 0.

Board Member Krummick moved, seconded by Board Member Steffe, to adjourn the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Motion carried 5 - 0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.

http://www.libertyville.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_11132017-912