City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met March 16.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 16, 2017
Meeting Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL
1. Call to Order
At 7:30 p.m. Chair Henry called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
2. Roll Call
Members Present: Henry, Bina, Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner
Members Absent: Muller, Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
3. Approval of Minutes
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2017 meeting. Motioned by Vice Chair Chaplik, seconded by Member Fettner. Member Bina stated he was not present at the March 2, 2017 meeting and abstained. Member Cullather stated Mr. Fortunato’s name was misspelled on page 9. On a voice vote the motioned carried unanimously.
4. Publication Date for New Business: 3-1-17
5. Business from the Public: None.
6. Old Business: None.
7. New Business:
a. #17-02-VAR-007
Property: 1425 Sheridan Road
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: David and Celeste Wheatley-Lewis
Address: 1425 Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IL 60035
The Chair continued this application to the April 20, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting.
b. #17-03-VAR-010
Property: 929 Edgewood Road (The Edgewood Middle School)
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: North Shore School District 112
Address: 1936 Green Bay Road, Highland Park, IL 60035
Chair Henry disclosed he was a former Dist. 122 board member and serves on the Reconfiguration 2.0 Committee, an official committee of the Board. He stated he was not recusing himself from this matter, as this is not a conflict of interest and does not prejudice him regarding the application.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project background, relief requested, aerial view, site plan, emergency access road options, tree review - City Forester notes, and photos of site and heritage trees.
Member Cullather inquired if a hazard tree is defined by the City code and was told no. He thought maybe they should avoid using that term since some applicants use the term “hazard.”
Planner Burhop stated the City Forester stated there are presently no targets for subject heritage tree to fall on.
Chair Henry asked about the issues before the Plan and Design Commission and if they have impact on the ZBA.
Planner Burhop stated they did not.
Chair Henry stated they are being asked to approve the demolition of heritage tree for an emergency access road to be used when access to the school grounds is made difficult by traffic, emergency vehicles, etc.
Mr. John Fuhrer, North Shore School Dist. 112, 1936 Green Bay Road, Highland Park, IL, stated Planner Burhop had been very cooperative throughout the process. They have an arborist present who could answer any questions.
Chair Henry mentioned the hardship letter which addresses what they are required to do, i.e., make five mandatory findings and two out of four selective findings. He asked who had prepared the letter. Ms. Terry stated she had.
Ms. Ann Terry, Planning Resources, 402 W. Liberty, Wheaton, IL, Arborist, made a presentation including the eastern stem which was dead wood and was broken off. Once a road was installed they would have to prune it and most of second of second stem would have to be removed, if not the whole thing. Many times when they try to save a tree it does not always work. The other heritage trees area in excellent condition and the construction would impact about 30% of the root system. There is very little that would cause damage. The wetlands are isolated small pockets and they want to try and avoid them. They cannot change the terminus of the road and it makes sense to do it this way.
Chair Henry asked for a brief summary of the hardship letter.
Ms. Terry stated regarding the mandatory findings for the removal of the tree will not alter the character of neighborhood, there is no detriment to public welfare, will facilitate safety of the school by providing the emergency access, will not affect supply of light or air to the neighborhood or to the wooded area, access road will be constructed of pervious pavers so there will no stormwater runoff, placement of the access road is fixed because of the terminus of Chaucer causing the least amount of damage to the environment, the removal of the heritage tree is necessary for the placement of the emergency access for safety and is a reasonable use and it is low impact, removal is not for a privileged use of the property, removal is necessary due to the Chaucer connection, it is a gentle slope with a depressed area and more difficult, trying to follow the contour of the topography vs. trying to install something with more impact, least invasive and most practical location for the road, as compensation they would plant four 3” dia. native trees per City requirement, within the landscape plan there will be dense planting incorporated into the regular landscape plan with evergreens, oaks and hickory trees.
Member Bina asked if the neighbors had provided comments about the proposal.
Ms. Terry stated not for this particular tree.
Chair Henry asked if they had heard from anyone.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated he was a neighbor and wanted to thank the District for communicating with the neighbors. They have had meetings and presentations so everyone is aware of what is going on.
Planner Burhop stated two or three residents had called to discuss and they were more concerned about the decision of the Plan and Design Commission and not the heritage tree specifically.
Chair Henry stated he thought they would be more concerned with fire trucks going up and down the street.
Member Bina asked if there had been any comments about option one vs. option two.
Ms. Terry stated there were none.
Chair Henry asked Ms. Terry if she had been provided with a copy of the memo from the City Forester.
Ms. Terry she had a copy and had met with him in the field.
Chair Henry stated the Forester had three recommendations – one is in regard to the excavation and root pruning, one regarding the protective fencing and the third regarding what will replace the tree. He mentioned four trees of 3” caliper.
Planner Burhop stated he had spoken with the City Forester and the third recommendation was based on outdated information and no longer applied.
Chair Henry asked if the District was willing to conform to this, the Forester’s suggestions. He proposed these recommendations be incorporated in the order.
Ms. Terry stated it was reasonable and said there were several ways to perform root pruning.
Chair Henry asked if they made them part of the order would the District be willing to comply.
Ms. Terry stated initially they had a memo that mentioned replacement by inches. They had met on site and have a good rapport.
Member Cullather asked about the process and what the Plan and Design Commission is considering.
Planner Burhop stated it was the improvements in general.
Mr. Fuhrer stated they requested a detailed planting schedule along the north line. There is currently 35-40’ of brush and they are not touching that. They are cleaning this up and doing basic planting along the north line with pines, permanent green. They are working on the gate aesthetics. There will be an operational flow of how site will be used. They are also considering signage. It is not on City property and they are making sure the setbacks are in the proper place.
Member Cullather thought they were putting the cart before horse in that if the Plan and Design Commission does not approve then the ZBA action may not be needed.
Mr. Fuhrer stated if there is some delay there would be no reason to take down the tree.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to close the proofs. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
The following discussion took place by the Board:
• Member Cullather stated he did not know where he stands on the issue, he understood the emergency access and was torn between options one and two, saving one tree and putting others at risk. He mentioned other discussions over heritage trees and that the City encourages the preservation of heritage trees. He asked if a private party wanted to remove a heritage tree would they look at it in the same way. He stated they should look at feasible alternatives and was concerned it was a slippery slope. He was torn on whether the tree should be removed
• Member Fettner stated he was not torn and thought the petitioner made solid arguments as to why the standards are met. He thought it met all mandatory findings and it met selective findings (b) and (c). This is for an emergency road. The City Forester recommends the option that would eliminate this tree but save others. Not all heritage trees are worth saving. He would support the removal and granting of the variance.
• Member Bina agreed with Member Fettner and thought not only were selective findings (b) and (c) met, but also (a) as well. This seems like the least intrusive way to make this work. It is not a residential case but a case of public importance and life saving emergency care for children. It is a near dead tree. He would support granting of the variance.
• Vice Chair Chaplik stated he would support the application and thought it met each of the mandatory findings and three and likely four of the selective findings. He appreciated the District’s work to do this as sensitively as possible. He understood about access turned into something more and that this is being dealt with at the Plan and Design Commission and is not the ZBA’s purview. The area is very soft ground and installing a bridge would be a monumental task. He thought removal of the tree is the least intrusive manner to accomplish an important emergency access for the school. He thought they had met the mandatory and selective findings and would support the application.
• Chair Henry stated he agreed with Members Fettner, Bina and Chaplik and thought the standards have been met. He understood Member Cullather’s concern about the slippery slope and the District should be sensitive to this. He stated he could not remember the last time the City Forester came out in favor of an application. He thought it was a matter of emergency access. The bridge would have a more deleterious effect than the road. He was in favor of the application with the caveat that the two recommendations of the City Forester be added to the order.
Planner Burhop stated he had talked to the City Forester about making the comments conditions of approval. The second comment relating to the chain link fence is a code requirement. The first comment about the location of the proposed excavation is not a code requirement.
Chair Henry stated he would suggest the order be made contingent upon the first recommendation of the City Forester being added to the agreed order.
Member Fettner motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact to approve granting the variation as requested with the condition that the City Forester’s comment regarding tree preservation measures on page two of the memo dated March 2, 2017 be made part of the approved order, seconded by Member Bina.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bina, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
Abstain: Cullather
Chair Henry declared the Motion Passed 4-0.
Chair Henry stated because they have changed the manner in which the order will be written they will take this up at the next meeting of April 6, 2017.
8. Miscellaneous:
Denial of order for #17-03-VAR-009, by Neil Fortunato, on behalf of the property owner Green Building Technologies Inc., 1218 Glencoe Avenue - request for one heritage tree removal.
Chair Henry stated this was an application for a heritage tree removal and the motion to approve failed at the last ZBA meeting. He asked if they needed to entertain a motion denying the application and then entertain a motion approving a denial order. He thought they had received advice from Corporate Counsel that they could let it hang.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated it is in the code which says that they are required to either approve it, deny it, or approve with conditions.
Planner Burhop stated it was Section 94.407 subparagraph A, subparagraph 4, stating the Zoning Board of Appeals shall either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the requested tree removal permit. The decision shall be forwarded in writing to the applicant not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the decision.
Chair Henry entertained a motion denying the application as presented. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
Abstain: Bina
Chair Henry declared the Motion Passed 4-0.
Chair Henry entertained a motion approving the denial order as prepared and presented by staff. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. Member Bina abstained. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
9. Staff Report: None
10. Adjournment:
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=1822&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up