Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met May 4.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

1. Call to Order

At 7:30 pm Chair Henry called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.

2. Roll Call

Members Present: Henry, Cullather, Fettner, Muller, Putzel

Members Absent: Chaplik, Bina

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Haddad

Student Rep.: Satterwhite

Council Liaison: None

3. Approval of Minutes

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 4-6-17 meeting with corrections. Motioned by Member Muller, seconded by Member Cullather. Member Muller voted present. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 4-20-17 meeting. Motioned by Member Cullather, seconded by Member Muller. Member Putzel voted present. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

4. Publication Date for New Business: 4-19-17

5. Business from the Public: None

6. Old Business: None

7. New Business:

a. #17-05-VAR-017

Property: 1408 McDaniels Ave.

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Joelen Pastva

Address: 1408 McDaniels Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, aerial view, plat of survey, site plan, floor plans, elevations, site photos and requested variation.

Chair Henry asked if the addition is on the existing footprint.

Planner Burhop stated the plat of survey and site plan verify the addition is on the same footprint.

Member Putzel asked if the encroachment was for the second floor.

Planner Burhop stated they are allowed 24” on the overhang into side yard. They want to go on exactly on top of the first floor, which has an existing nonconforming side yard setback.

Member Putzel asked if it was for both levels.

Planner Burhop stated not on the first level. They are not changing the first level.

Chair Henry asked if it is still considered an encroachment that required a variation.

Planner Burhop stated it is an additional bulk within a required side yard, so yes.

Chair Henry asked if they had heard from the neighbors.

Planner Burhop stated he had received no call or emails.

Member Fettner wanted to confirm at no point does the encroachment reach 1”.

Planner Burhop stated the existing and proposed setback, at the maximum point, is 2-3/8” and then it gradually becomes less.

Ms. Natalja Dobos, 1431 Green Bay, Highland Park, IL, Architect, stated her clients like the big garage, the second floor has three small bedrooms and a small bathroom. At the closing the plat of survey showed a 1.02’ encroachment into the required side yard setback. There is no other way to add a master suite and the only way to build it is to go on top of the existing first floor.

Member Fettner asked if they had looked at different options.

Ms. Dobos stated they had. They spoke to the neighbors to the west and they had no objections. She had spoken to a neighbor across the street and they had no objections. They are keeping the same style of house and it will fit in the neighborhood. It will also increase the value of the house.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to close the proofs. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

The following discussion took place by the Board:

• Member Putzel stated the point that it could not yield a reasonable return if used under present conditions was surprising in that the owners did not know this. She thought this was similar to other houses in neighborhood. She stated that no evidence had been presented about the uniqueness of the surrounding properties. She stated the project is not materially detrimental to the neighborhood and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. She was conflicted on this case because she believed a prospective home buyer should know what construction they can or cannot do in advance.

• Member Cullather stated he understood the applicant’s situation and believed that the 1”- 2-3/8” difference was minimal and it was going on top of the existing footprint. It was meeting all the other requirements regarding height and FAR. The plat of survey and non-advance knowledge of zoning setbacks on the part of the homeowner did not surprise him since you often receive them at closing. This is not a situation the owner created. A corner lot makes it more difficult and he thought it was a minimal issue and he would support the variance.

• Member Fettner stated he had no problem supporting this. This is an existing non-conforming structure and they are mimicking the footprint above. They have spoken to the neighbors who have no objections. It is corner lot which makes it difficult to expand and thought it was a reasonable improvement. He thought it met all the standards and would support it.

• Member Muller stated he agreed this seems to be when you go to closing you don’t know what the setbacks are. The previous owner probably intended to put the house 6’ away from the property line and when they were building a stick was moved – in other words, the encroachment is so minimal it could have been by accident. He thought this was minimal and met all the standards.

• Chair Henry stated he agree with his colleagues and understood Member Putzel’s concerns. When you buy property you buy it as is for better or worse. The Chair stated it makes the most sense to put the addition where the owner proposes. The only other place is to the south and that does not make sense. He stated it met the standards and would support it.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the variation as requested. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Muller, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion Passed 5-0.

Member Muller motioned to approve the approval order as presented, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

b. #17-05-VAR-018

Property: 1431 Green Bay Rd.

Zoning District: R46

Appellant: Natalja Dobos

Address: 1431 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planning Intern Haddad made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, site plan, encroachments, existing and proposed floor plan, elevations, aerial view, photos and requested variation.

Planner Burhop stated the addresses the owner referred to on the established building setback exhibit correspond north to south.

Ms. Natalja Dobos, 1431 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL, Owner, made a presentation for the above item including: site plan, need for additional bathrooms and a two-garage, house is not parallel to the street, trees not closer than 5’ to house, making the house and garage smaller to keep the trees, probably only a developer would buy the house now, need to add bathroom to master suite, looked at a detached garage but the lot is too shallow, it is a way to make the house more livable, increase the curb appeal and make it look nicer, and photos of the neighborhood.

Member Muller asked what they were trying to show with the photos.

Ms. Dobos stated the amount of the driveways and the style of the homes.

Member Muller asked how this would affect their request.

Ms. Dobos stated they are not changing the character of the neighborhood.

Member Cullather asked if there was City Forester’s report.

Ms. Dobos stated yes.

Member Cullather stated it had not been mentioned yet and the last line in the Forester’s report stated he could not support the request because of the protected trees.

Ms. Dobos stated it was a key tree. She stated she had spoken with the Forestry Dept. and was advised to keep 5’ away from the trees. She also spoke with an arborist who said they cold prune the roots and add a growth regulator to make sure the trees survive.

Chair Henry stated the report says there is a heritage tree that is not expected be impacted. There are two other trees that are considered key trees.

Planner Burhop stated the tree the Forester is concerned about is key or protected and the applicant can remove it by right through permit and replacement trees.

Chair Henry stated the tree report is required as part of the process.

Planner Burhop stated if approved by the Board, a tree preservation plan is required as part of any building permit application.

Chair Henry stated it is required by City code.

Planner Burhop confirmed this.

Member Muller stated they will not issue the building permit until the Forester is satisfied the tree will be protected.

Member Fettner asked why they could not add the addition in the back.

Ms. Dobos stated the biggest bedroom is in the front and they would like to have bath in the bedroom.

Member Fettner asked if they could not have a rear addition because of the way the rooms line up.

Ms. Dobos stated the rear yard setback with the addition will be 5’ deep and will encroach into the setback. They would also have to move the patio.

Member Muller asked about the shower in the master bath and a tub behind it and asked if they removed the tub or shower they would not need a variance.

Ms. Dobos stated they are trying to make it look like one house and it would not look right, also it would be less functional.

Member Fettner asked what is the minimum lot size is for R6.

Planning Intern Haddad stated is it 7,260 s.f.

Chair Henry entertained motion to close proofs, Member Muller so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

Student Rep. Sattherwhite stated this was a hardship without a garage and a single bath. She stated the house would not return a reasonable amount. She did not think they could not move the bath to back because of the setback. If they wanted to move the garage they would impact the heritage tree.

The following discussion took place by the Board:

• Member Fettner stated there were a couple of hardships with an odd shaped lot and not having a garage. It creates difficulties in doing any type of improvement. They cannot improve the home without some type of relief. He thought what they were doing was modest and trying to keep within the character of the neighborhood. He would support the variance.

• Member Muller agreed and they need to consider the established front yard setback. He thought they were minimal improvements to the home, it is an odd shaped lot and he thought it met the standards.

• Member Cullather agreed and thought they did a good job of explaining their request. The only option to improve the property and comply is to go up but there are expenses and issues with this. It is a minor encroachment on an odd shaped lot and there is a need for a shower/tub. He understood keeping the front of the house flush. He was inclined to support the request.

• Member Putzel agreed and thought they did a nice job in explaining. They are asking for a modest request and reasonable. She understood the need for the bath and garage. Because of the shape of the lot it encroaches in an odd shape. She stated she would support the request.

• Chair Henry agreed and the garage is a no-brainer and there is no where else to put it. Two-car garages are norm in the community and the bathroom makes sense to maintain the integrity of the walls. He thought it met the standards and would support the request.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the variance as requested. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Muller, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion Passed 5-0.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the draft variance approval order.

Planner Burhop stated he omitted the approval order by accident or mistake and apologized; he stated it would be available at the next meeting.

The Chair stated the Board would consider the approval order at the next meeting, on May 18.

c. #17-05-VAR-020

Property: 1425 Sheridan Rd.

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: David and Celeste Wheatley-Lewis

Address: 1425 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including this is a separate application from the previous and ongoing application for steep slope zone variations for a deck and gazebo and this is for the garage rebuild and addition, project background, aerial view, topographic map, survey plat, site plan, minimal encroachment into the steep slope zone, proposed first and second floors, existing elevations, proposed loft and roof plan, photos and requested variation.

Member Muller asked if the applicant would have to come a second time.

Planner Burhop stated they would only be talking about the garage and addition portion.

Member Muller asked what they have on the location of the proposed new garage.

Planner Burhop stated there is a two-car garage and the turret staircase existing.

Member Muller asked if they were going to remove the garage and build another.

Planner Burhop confirmed this was the applicant’s intention.

Member Putzel asked if the garage was connected.

Planner Burhop stated it was attached to the residence.

Member Muller asked about the proposed rear elevation and if they were adding a third floor on top of the garage.

Planner Burhop stated it is not a third floor but a loft. There is a higher roof for the master bedroom. Planner Burhop stated the proposal is within the allowed height requirement.

Member Muller stated they are matching the height of the existing home.

Planner Burhop stated it may not count as floor area depending on the floor to ceiling height.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including: this was going to be one project and the dilapidated garage would be rebuilt on the same footprint, the applicant wants to create some outdoor living space where there is a patio and this request is with the NRC and is a separate application, there is no third floor, they want to relocate the master suite to the second floor, there is little buildable area, it is a lot in-depth, the only house impacted by this is to the east which has a peaked roof and 2’ from the lot line, they are not looking to increase the encroachment, it is a lot-in-depth setback and they want to match up the height of the garage with the existing house and they have contacted the neighbor who has no objection.

Mr. Jeremiah Diamond, 928 Rolling Wood Rd., Highland Park, IL, Architect, made a presentation including the applicant wants to save the steel garage structure which is rusting and replace the structure, there was a child’s loft above and they thought it was a better use of space to make it into a master suite, they are sensitive to building on the existing footprint and there is no other reasonable place to build, they want to keep the bulk of house in line with the existing house and bring the two parts together so it does not look like addition, the are adding elements, not a porch but an interior hallway they moved the exterior wall to add the interior corridor and the master bedroom has 16’ ceiling clerestory windows.

Member Muller asked if there was a third story.

Mr. Diamond stated it was a mezzanine and approximately 50 s.f.

Mr. Bernstein stated the first standard is about yielding a reasonable return and they could build a much larger house. The want to preserve the house. They cannot yield a reasonable return by building on this tiny envelope. There is not the intention to make more money and they want to invest in a house that was built in 1920’s. The hardship is that it is a lot-in-depth with a very minute building envelope. Any improvement will need variance and they decided to go up to obtain more living space. The variation will not be detrimental to the neighbors and will not diminish properties in the neighborhood. They have the support of the neighbors. They are improving a house from the 1920s which will increase the property values in the area. It is not visible from Sheridan Rd. and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. They are trying update the house into 21st century living to create the space people want today. They are doing it in the existing footprint of a non-confirming situation. They are requesting the variance as proposed.

Chair Henry stated they could not build 7300 s.f. house unless they built it up.

Mr. Bernstein stated they would have to come before the Board and get a zoning variance. He stated they might be able to build a triangle house like the one in Deerfield.

Member Cullather asked if they had the letter from the neighbor.

Mr. Bernstein stated the applicant said they had a conversation with the neighbor and they had no objections.

Chair Henry stated the hearing was posted on the property and no one is here in favor or against.

Mr. Bernstein stated Planner Burhop stated he had received no comments from the neighbors.

Planner Burhop stated he had received phone calls only about the decking and gazebo project but no one had called about the garage. Planner Burhop stated the applicant had verified delivery of proper notice for this separate, garage and addition project.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to close the proofs. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

The following discussion took place by the Board:

• Member Cullather stated Mr. Bernstein had gone through the standards for granting the variation and would like to hear what the other members had to say.

• Member Putzel stated it was a reasonable request and it was tricky being on a ravine in an odd shaped lot. The garage is dated and it makes sense for new garage. If the neighbor does not have an issue with a garage next to a garage it does not seem to be a problem. It will improve the neighborhood and increase the value of the property.

• Member Fettner stated this is the type of property they are here to grant relief for. There are a lot of complex setbacks and a very limited building envelope. He thought there were so many hardships you could not even rebuild an existing garage. He thought it met all the standards.

• Member Muller stated he did not have a problem with the garage and the master suite. He was having a hard time justifying adding the third level or mezzanine. He thought there was an additional 19’ over the garage in height and bulk. However, Member Muller also stated this is a unique location and would only be visible to the neighbor. In this case he could make an exception to the bulk, mass and effort to minimize the encroachment.

• Chair Henry stated he agreed with the other members. Even with this addition it does not exceed the FAR which is a bulk standard in the code. He shared Member Muller’s concern with the mass of the building. The fact the applicant seeks to rebuild on the exact footprint is significant. The boundaries of this lot are very difficult in terms of building a conforming structure. If this were a vacant lot a house this size could never be built on it unless it was built up. He would support the variation.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the variance as requested. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Muller, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion Passed 5-0.

Planner Burhop stated he had made one change on pages one and two changing the distance of the encroachment to 28.8’. Mr. Burhop put this change on the overhead for the members of public to see.

Chair Henry stated the proposed order is accurate. He entertained a motion approving the variance approval order as corrected on the public record by staff and as presented to the Board. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

8. Miscellaneous: None

9. Staff Report: None

10. Adjournment:

Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:05 pm.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=1848&Inline=True