City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals Commission met May 18.
Here are the minutes provided by the commission:
CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 p.m., Vice Chair Bay called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on-site. Staff was asked to call the roll.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Commissioners Absent: Chairperson Cullather; Commissioners Hendrick & Zaransky
Councilmember Absent: Tapia
Student Council Present: Bach
Student Council Absent: Risko-Juarez
Staff declared that a quorum was present.
Guests Present: Emily Schiller, Petitioner
Robert Shrago, Architect/Shrago Design & Build, LLC
Jill Rosenberg, Resident
Marcus Martinez & Hart Passman, Corporation Counsel/Elrod Friedman
Staff Present: Burhop
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Beck moved to approve the March 16, 2023, regular meeting minutes as presented. Commissioner Yablon seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Voting Nay: None
Staff declared that the motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Beck moved to approve the April 20, 2023, regular meeting minutes as presented. Commissioner Treshansky seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Voting Nay: None
Staff declared that the motion passed 4-0.
Commissioner Yablon stated she was absent for the May 4, 2023, meeting and did not review the video. Senior Planner Burhop advised these are not approvals just minutes so a majority vote is acceptable. Corporation Counsel Martinez and Passman concurred. Vice Chair Bay noted he was absent for the May 4, 2023, meeting and did review the video.
Commissioner Treshansky moved to approve the May 4, 2023, regular meeting minutes as presented. Commissioner Beck seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, & Treshansky
Voting Nay: None
Abstain: Commissioner Yablon
Staff declared that the motion passed 3-0.
PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS
The Publication Date for New Business was May 3, 2023.
BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
There was no Business from the Public.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
Vice Chair Bay stated he was asked to move up agenda item #1 under Miscellaneous.
MISCELLANEOUS
1. Resolution Honoring Outgoing Student Representative
Vice Chair Bay read the Resolution for Outgoing Student Representative Jeremy Bach. The group applauded Student Rep Bach.
Commissioner Yablon moved to adopt the Resolution honoring outgoing Student Representative, Jeremy Bach. Commissioner Beck seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Voting Nay: None
Staff declared that the motion passed unanimously.
Back to…..
NEW BUSINESS
1. #2023-VAR-007
Property: 1126 Lincoln Avenue S
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Robert Shrago
Address: 1171 Beech Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035
The petitioner Robert Shrago of 1171 Beech Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035, on-behalf-of the property owner Andrew Schiller, of 1126 Lincoln Avenue S, Highland Park, IL 60035, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1), of the Highland Park Zoning Code, variations of provisions of Section 150.105.A and Section
150.711.A, to (i) encroach 10.2 feet within the required 65.44 feet Established Building Setback measured from the east property line along Lincoln Avenue S, in order to construct an addition.
Senior Planner Burhop explained the proposal:
∙ Site location
∙ Project background
o additions, including 2nd story (vertical) addition above the older part of home
o requested relief:
▪ to encroach within the Established Building Setback (EBS) from the east property line
∙ Aerial view was illustrated (slightly irregular lot)
∙ Built in 1925
∙ Survey, site, elevation, and floor plans were displayed
∙ Applicant photos were illustrated
∙ EBS review with other homes was shared (average setback is 65.44’)
∙ Other Comments
Vice Chair Bay indicated there were no written comments, and asked if there were any phone calls. Senior Planner Burhop stated 1-2 neighbors phoned, and he alerted them as to the specifics of this meeting.
Petitioner, Emily Schiller, co-owner of 1126 Lincoln Avenue S, and Robert Shrago, architect at Shrago Design & Build, LLC, 1171 Beech Lane, Highland Park, IL were sworn in.
Mr. Shrago stated this project includes a 1st floor addition as the kitchen is small. The rooms are chopped up as the home is on a slant; not a true Colonial; hoping for a more modern floor plan. The owners enjoy old homes and fell in love with this house and Highland Park. Some improvements have been made so they wish to complete logical floor plans that are good for them, their future, and the neighborhood.
He noted the FAR and closet revision options. Small closets years ago were common. The proposal includes a logical size for the primary bedroom. The roof is flat and will remain low. Multiple options were considered during an eight-month period. There are no windows on the addition adjacent to the neighbor. A blind will go on the existing window. Wainscoting is present. The upstairs will look identical to the downstairs.
Some ZBA comments are:
∙ Commissioner Yablon asked to explain the plan with windows, doors, walls, and dormers. Mr. Shrago explained same (encroachment, window). The roof of the existing house was illustrated as well as the top of the roof of the proposed addition. He discussed matching windows (upstairs and down).
∙ Vice Chair Bay asked if there will be any changes on the exterior below the proposed addition. Mr. Shrago said there will not be any changes there.
∙ Commissioner Beck said it’s a nice plan. He asked about hardships. Regarding hardships, Mr. Shrago said they could build a two-story addition. It would be costly with a lot of room. With the landlocked rooms and a return on investment, they wouldn’t be able to sell the house; wouldn’t be feasible. The unique circumstances is the established yard setback. The house was built before they knew there would be an established front-yard setback. To build a classic traditional style, this is what was established after the house was built. The property in the back is large. There was no zoning to say this couldn’t be done in the foreseen future. Everyone on the block chose their own places to build. They believe there was no other choice. A lot of time was taken. The home was built in a place where they have no choice. They minimized the plane. Regarding the view, they did the best they could; low profile. The footprint is already there. They are not blocking a view that was there; building up. People enjoy their design. This is a traditional, proven design; matching what’s there. They are fixing a floor plan that’s flawed. Making it bigger would make it worse.
Ms. Schiller said she and her husband moved to Highland Park six years ago, love it, are active here. They have grown their family. This nearly 100 year-old home is their forever home. They have worked hard to improve it to reflect today’s living standards to enjoy with their family for decades to come. This is the next step to improve the primary bedroom closet and bathroom to accommodate two adults. The current structure has two windows facing the south neighbors and an unappealing fence. This proposal will only beautify that space, be in line with tradition of this classic home, and ultimately remove one window of that wall facing the south neighbors. That is currently a bedroom and will now be a closet to improve privacy.
Vice Chair Bay asked if anyone in the audience wishes to speak. The following was sworn in:
∙ Jill Rosenberg 1114 Lincoln Avenue S (house directly to the south)
Ms. Rosenberg noted she and her husband are not that concerned about the windows. They are more concerned about the light. They have an existing electric utility pole against their garage connected by cable and wires to the corner of the Petitioner’s home. Their concern is the stability of that pole on their property. If the cable provides resisting tension, is moved underground, and is less stable, their garage could be exposed, they could lose power, or they would have to move the lines underground – or replace the pole or repair it.
Vice Chair Bay clarified same. He asked if they contacted anyone at the power company. Ms. Rosenberg said it would be their responsibility as it is their pole.
Commissioner Beck asked if Ms. Rosenberg asked the Schiller’s if the pole would be stabilized. Ms. Rosenberg shared she doesn’t know the entire conversation but believes the electricity would be moved underground. Mr. Shrago said they will install 100-200 amps with nothing underground. He noted ComEd owns the pole with one wire going to the Schiller’s house and another wire going to the Rosenberg’s house. When upgrading, ComEd takes it down and puts it back. They couldn’t leave a pole to be unstable otherwise it would affect both parties.
Senior Planner Burhop stated the Petitioner would have to comply with building and electrical codes. Concerns could be directed to the Building Division. Vice Chair Bay concurred.
Ms. Rosenberg stated then the only concern is the light that would be reduced on that side of their house. Commissioner Beck asked how something could be impacted on her north side. Ms. Rosenberg said, on that side of the house, it will feel darker. There won’t be as much space or air around the property anymore especially with the additional back part of the house.
Vice Chair Bay asked how far her house is from the Petitioner’s house. Senior Planner Burhop said he could not find a survey on file. There is a driveway that runs between the homes. The GIS states approximately 21’ from the neighbor’s home to the property line. Vice Chair Bay reminded the first floor is already existing.
∙ Commissioner Yablon asked if there would be an impact if the Petitioner were to do what was allowed by-right vs. the proposed plan of 10’ (from the chimney). Ms. Rosenberg said it’s a different proximity of the bedrooms than what’s there now. It feels uncomfortable and closer. It affects two bedrooms.
Vice Chair asked Mr. Shrago how much of the addition is nonconforming, and how much is within the EBS. Mr. Shrago replied 10.2’ in depth. Senior Planner Burhop illustrated same.
The ZBA offered comments:
∙ Commissioner Beck stated it comes down to if there is a hardship or not. He is not convinced there is a hardship.
∙ Commissioner Treshansky said there is a hardship as to how the house was built, and it is already nonconforming. The other standards are easily met. It is a good project. He would be in favor.
∙ Commissioner Yablon said regarding the pros and cons of the hardship, she is inclined to approve this. By right, they are allowed half a closet. It would look terrible from an architectural standpoint. She appreciates the aesthetics. Regarding what’s being added, she asked why not add somewhere else. Mr. Shrago said since the primary bathroom is small, it wouldn’t be just half a closet, the back part is toilet closet, linen closet, and would be a smaller closet. He illustrated same. Commissioner Yablon asked why that is not doable. Mr. Shrago said they couldn’t create a logical floor plan that made sense. Landlocking all the windows in the house would be funky to view; wouldn’t be meant to be; has to be a required structure to get the required head room. They put a lot of time into this.
∙ Vice Chair Bay tends to be in favor. The hardship is trying to keep everything in line with what is already and doing something that makes sense and is functional. He appreciates the architect’s candor. The standards have been met.
∙ Commissioner Beck agrees if the Petitioner built something by-right, it wouldn’t be consistent with the architecture or the neighborhood. He will now vote in favor.
Vice Chair Bay explained all Commissioners have to vote yes for this proposal to be approved. He noted a continuance could be requested. Senior Planner Burhop further explained additional motions could be made. Commissioner Beck reiterated he would now vote in favor of this proposal.
Commissioner Yablon moved to approve the order as drafted. Commissioner Beck seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.
STAFF REPORT
Senior Planner Burhop said there will be one new application for each the June 1 and June 15, 2023, ZBA meetings.
There could be a new Planner that may attend the June 1, 2023, ZBA meeting.
Vice Chair Bay apologized to Student Representative for not requesting comment on the previous petition.
Back to…..
MISCELLANEOUS
2. Legal Training
Messrs. Passman and Martinez offered a refresher presentation and explained same:
∙ Agenda
∙ Statutory and Legal Authority (IL Zoning Enabling Law)
∙ City Code Provisions
∙ Final vs. Recommending Authority
∙ Highland Park’s Standards for Variations
o Section 150.1205
∙ Burden for Satisfying Standards
∙ Variations: Common Problems
∙ Appeals
∙ Open Meetings Act
o Procedure
o Email and Online Communication
o Openness
o Agenda
o Training Requirements
o Enforcement
∙ FOIA
o General Rule
o Are ZBA members subject to FOIA
∙ Robert’s Rules of Order
∙ Motions to Continue and Table
∙ Reconsideration
∙ Procedure – Public Hearings
∙ Ethics
o City Guidelines
o Guidelines
o Interactions with Staff
ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Beck moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Treshansky seconded the motion.
On a roll call vote
Voting Yea Vice Chair Bay; Commissioners Beck, Treshansky, & Yablon
Voting Nay: None
Vice Chair Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2843&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up