Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met January 18.

Here is the minutes provided by the Board:

I. Call To Order

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

Members Present: Bay, Bina, Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry, Putzel

Members Absent: None

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop

Student Reps.: Gordon, Hoyt

Council Liaison: Stolberg

II. Approval Of Minutes

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 1-4-18 meeting. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Bina. Member Fettner abstained, as he was not present at that meeting. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

III. Publication Date For New Business: 1-3-18

IV. Business From The Public: None

V. Old Business:

a. #17-11-VAR-046

Property: 1880 Crescent Court

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Richard & Bonnie Tolan

Address: 585 Cherokee Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including requested variation, project location, project background, aerial view, new application materials, revised and original plans, elevation plan, original and revised floor areas, plat of survey, site plan, steep slope zone (SSZ) exhibit, floor plans, elevation plans, photos and requested variation.

Member Putzel asked if there was any opposition from the neighbors.

Planner Burhop stated there was not.

Member Fettner stated he had reviewed the video from the January 4, 2018 meeting.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Attorney, mentioned the reasonable return, nine-sided lot, combined side yard should not be applicable, three-car garage is the norm in this neighborhood, 11’ setback on the east side and west side is double, pie shape lot corrupts the way lot width is calculated, reasonable return, preserving the existing home, want to make home more useable and very small building pad.

Member Fettner asked about the reasonable return.

Mr. Bernstein stated the house is non-conforming and any work on the garage would need a variance. It is on approximately one acre surrounded by houses with 3-car garages. They are renovating an existing house and this is the only place for a garage. It is still set back 21’ from the lot line and there is a significant side yard. A three-car garage is needed for a reasonable return.

Member Bina stated he was struggling with the first two elements and had not heard anything to change his mind. He could not support the application.

Member Cullather mentioned the combination of the shape and buildable area and that they are trying to renovate an existing structure and the accommodation in order to build the garage meets the standards. They were responsive to previous comments in making the garage smaller. He would support the application.

Member Bay thought it met the standards and would support the application.

Member Putzel agreed with Member Cullather and would support the application.

Member Fettner stated he reviewed the minutes and agreed it met the standards and would support the application.

Vice Chair Chaplik stated in the past he was concerned with ability of the application to meet the standards. The lot has a difficult shape and he was prepared to change his opinion and would support the application. The result of not being able to do this did not sit well with him and in this case the shape of the lot swayed him.

Chair Henry stated he would support the application although he was a little troubled. A three-car garage is not the status quo for Highland Park. If you look at the size of the lot and size of the buildable area it is stunning where they can build something. Although he appreciated Member Bina’s concerns, he would support the application.

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

Chair Henry stated this motion is for the revised application.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry

Nays: Bina

The Chair declared the motion passed 6-1.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approval the approval order. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

b. #17-11-VAR-050

Property: 867 Broadview Ave.

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Heather Curtis

Address: 867 Broadview Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop read into the record an email from the applicant requesting a continuance to the next available Board meeting.

The Chair stated that at the request of the applicant, this item will be continued to the February 1, 2018 meeting.

c. #17-12-VAR-056

Property: 3392 Dato Ave.

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Yuriy Nekrasov

Address: 3392 Dato Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop stated this application involves relief to the subdivision building line and in order to for the Board to consider this they must receive two items – a notarized and executed hold harmless agreement and some type of letter indicating no objection or consent from the two immediate neighbors. He stated he had received these documents and put the documents up to view on the overhead screens.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, aerial view, plat of survey, site plan, existing and proposed floor plans, elevation plans, existing and proposed encroachment, established building setback, photos, renderings and requested variation.

Member Bay stated they were not asking for more than the existing non-conformity.

Planner Burhop confirmed that the applicant was asking for about one more foot of encroachment.

Chair Henry asked about the dimensions of the garage.

Planner Burhop stated they were 20’ x 22’.

Vice Chair Chaplik asked if the subdivision constraints would allow a rear garage.

Planner Burhop stated they could build in the rear with no zoning constraint but was not aware of any other constraints, such as topography, utilities, trees,etc.

Mr. Matthew Kerouac, 314 W. Hawthorne, Lake Bluff, IL, Architect, stated the applicant bought the house in 2015 hoping to update the home. It was built in 1955 and is dilapidated and out of date. There is a carport and it is the only home on the block without an attached garage. They want to add on to the house and add an attached garage. They looked at putting it in the rear, but there are trees on the north side which would prohibit this. It was also impractical to have a large driveway at a 12’ width. Out of the 14 homes on the block nine of them are in front of the established front yard setback. There are five that are beyond and two outliers. They want to keep the overhang to be consistent with the architectural style.

Member Bay asked if the proposed garage could be built farther back.

Mr. Kerouac stated there is no way to recess the garage into the existing residence.

Member Bay stated they are not going back very far behind the garage and using the existing structure. He asked if they added an addition on the side where the garage is could they push the garage into the house.

Mr. Kerouac stated there is a basement and they would have to create a whole new structure and it is not feasible.

Chair Henry asked if the garage is on essentially the same footprint as the carport.

Mr. Kerouac stated it is. The carport has a strong presence and is atypical for the block. It forces the applicant to have one car in the driveway at all times. The shed is also in poor condition. It is a one-story addition and they kept the addition to the rear.

Member Bay asked if they had received any comments from the neighbors.

Mr. Yuriy Nekrasov, 3392 Dato Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, Applicant, stated he had received no objections from the two immediate neighbors.

Member Cullather asked if they had thought of making the overhang smaller.

Mr. Kerouac stated they could push it to 12”, but they want to maintain the integrity of the design.

Student Rep. Gordon stated they were building on an existing carport and it was only an additional 1’encroachment. They also have the consent of the neighbors. He would support the application.

Member Bay discussed what is reasonable versus what is possible in order to stay within the zoning ordinance required setbacks. He thought the request was minimal and was close to the same footprint and would support the application.

Member Putzel stated it met the requirements and would not yield a reasonable return if it was not built. She thought it was minimal and would support it. It alleviates the unusual hardship and they would be able to park two cars in the garage.

Member Fettner stated he would support the application and it met the standards. The majority of the properties on the street encroach into the front yard setback and there is a curved street which minimizes the impact and it is a big improvement on the street.

Member Bina stated he agreed, it is a two car hardship case and he would support the application.

Member Cullather stated he agreed and the neighbors do not have a problem with it.

Vice Chair Chaplik stated he agreed and saw the hardship of no garage, thought it met the meets standards and would support the application.

Chair Henry stated he agreed and it is basically on the same footprint as the carport and it met the standards.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve. Member Fettner moved to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the variance as requested, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Bina, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair declared the motion passed 7-0.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.

VI. New Business:

a. #18-01-VAR-001

Property: 226 N. Deere Park Dr. East

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Bruce & Marlene Saltzberg

Address: 211 Pine Point, Highland Park, IL

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, Compere Rule, aerial view, photos of existing home, zoning code considerations: height, FAR, topographic exhibit, existing and proposed site plans, steep slope zone (SSZ) consideration, proposed north and east elevations, floor areas, existing vs. new home FAR analysis, basement floor area, neighborhood FAR analysis, neighboring building heights, other notes and requested variation.

Member Bay asked if there was anything unusual about the topography that would skew the grade calculations.

Planner Burhop stated that in terms of a sinkhole or unusual depression, no. Planner Burhop stated the Board would have to determine if the 16-17’ foot elevation change within the front to back of the buildable area should be considered unusual or a hardship.

Chair Henry asked about the grade of the home as it would appear at the front.

Planner Burhop stated it was 29.05’.

Chair Henry asked if you went to the back of the proposed house what the measurement would be.

Planner Burhop brought up the rear elevation slide and stated the full dimension was not identified. Planner Burhop stated they could defer this to the applicant.

Vice Chair Chaplik asked if the lower level was not counted would they be within the FAR.

Planner Burhop stated they would be.

Chair Henry asked if the applicant defined basement or cellar based upon what the Code defines as grade which gets skewed by the SSZ and it drops off.

Planner Burhop stated the applicant was counting the lower level as a basement, which is included in FAR calculations, and the SSZ is not included in the grade calculation.

Member Fettner asked how many s.f. of the basement is above grade.

Planner Burhop stated it is the whole thing, because the majority of the floor to ceiling height of lower level is above the average grade of the property, and therefore the lower level is considered a basement.

Chair Henry stated the Code defines grade in a certain way and it may or may not be below or above where the ground is, but it is where average grade it.

Planner Burhop stated when you have walkouts whether they count as basements or cellars gets down to the average grade of the property.

Member Bay asked if the basement had a 10’ ceiling height throughout.

Planner Burhop stated this was approximately correct.

Vice Chair Chaplik asked if notice had been given to the neighbor to the south.

Planner Burhop confirmed this and the applicant had submitted the receipts verifying proper legal notice.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including this is a unique situation, a 90-year old home that is not practical to renovate, purchase is contingent on getting relief, lot is 60,000 s.f., existing house is 34’-5’ higher than the proposed house, houses in the neighborhood exceed this height, problematic to measure grade with ravine properties, 16’ grade change from front to back, private lot, dead end street, perception is that it will be a 29’ house, FAR would be 15%, reasonable return, inability to sell existing house, unique circumstance, hardship not created by the applicant, will not impair supply of light, will not alter essential character of the neighborhood, less than FARs on same block, intent of code, minimal impact to neighborhood, basement FAR, recommend approval of variation request to City Council.

Member Fettner asked if they were forced to build as of right there are only two options.

Mr. Mike Hershenson, 1515 Sherman, Evanston, IL, Architect, made a presentation including the applicant wants a traditional home with a sloping roof, sloped roof as shallow as possible to keep height lower, otherwise they could build a two-story with a flat roof or a ranch, sloping site limits what you can do with lot.

Mr. Bernstein stated when the house was designed they planned a small second floor. Only 1,800 s.f. is on the second floor that is front loaded.

Member Bay asked if consideration had been given to re-grading of the lot.

Mr. Bernstein stated that would create another set of issues and the applicant does not want to do that.

Mr. Hershenson stated even if they re-graded it the definition of grade would stay the same and they would still have the same hardship.

Chair Henry mentioned the standard he was having trouble with is #1 that it cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions the code allows. There is a large buildable area that does not necessarily all have to be used or they do not have to have the lower level.

Mr. Bernstein stated it is a large piece of property, almost 60,000 s.f. The market is people do not want ranch houses on that size lot and it would create a tremendous amount of impervious surface, much more than a multi-level. If they increase the footprint they will run into runoff issues. The owner is present and can describe his efforts to sell the house and unless something like this is constructed he cannot get a reasonable return.

Mr. Hershenson stated if they built a ranch house as large as it could possibly be on a slab they would have to have a giant piece of concrete which would not be feasible. They could only build half as large a house.

Member Putzel asked how much of the lot is buildable table land.

Mr. Hershenson stated he did not know the calculation.

Member Cullather asked if the 16’ dropoff in grade was from the top of the red line to the farthest point.

Mr. Bernstein illustrated the grade.

Member Bay asked if the proposed basement was the same size as the first floor.

Mr. Hershenson stated yes besides the garages.

Member Putzel asked if they considered a smaller garage or small basement to reduce the square feet.

Mr. Hershenson stated they considered a crawlspace as a possibility but they would need 6’ of concrete to create the crawlspace. It would be more work and effort and does not change the massing. The outside would look the same.

Mr. Bernstein stated it would look the same from the front. If it were not for the cellar counting as above grade they would not be here.

Member Putzel asked if the garage was below grade or on the first level.

Mr. Hershenson stated it is on the first level, a three-car garage total.

Mr. Bernstein stated there are ravines on three sides of the property and they worked with staff to make sure they are staying away from them and they are trying to be sensitive to the steep slope.

Mr. Thomas Sultan, 226 N. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL, Current Owner, stated they bought the property in 1995, are downsizing, there is no interest in the property, people are only interested in building a new home, he feels like they are handcuffed, they have an offer to build with contingencies on passing review, without this it will likely be sold at a lower price, they have a proposal on another home contingent on selling this property, the front half of the lowest level of the house will be built into the slope and it should be considered half cellar/half basement. He stated he was on the Lakefront Commission and Natural Resources Commission. If they add mass to the existing slope it would add stress to the steep slope. He felt it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. He thought the idea of making the maximum height based on the middle of the slope made no sense. 29’ on the front of the house is smaller than many of the neighbors.

Student Rep. Hoyt stated he had difficulty with the reasonable return, but it would be difficult to find someone to purchase the house in its current condition. It would also be difficult to find someone to keep it as a ranch or a flat roof. It keeps up with character of the neighborhood and he would support the application.

Member Cullather stated he understood the position in trying to sell. Because of the slope he did not have a problem with the FAR, walkout basement is not visible from the front, from the front curb will not see the house as taller, distance between houses, had trouble seeing if the mass from any direction is significant, it is lower all around than the existing house and he could get around this.

Member Fettner stated this is the type of case they are here for. They have a property that is unique and if it were flat there would be no issues. The actual height is 29’ as it appears from the front side along the cul-de-sac, and when you try to build a house with different grades it is almost impossible to have it within the regulations. If you are forced to build a ranch or contemporary house it goes to the first standard where you cannot yield a reasonable return. They are restricted on the type of home and this goes to the first standard. The other standard is the unique circumstance and it does not impair an adequate supply of light. He thought it met the standards and is the type if unique property they are here to review. Member Fettner thought re-grading would create other issues. He would support the application.

Member Bay agreed and did not think there was a problem with height. A large portion of the basement could be considered cellar if the definitions were only slightly changed and is a compelling argument. He would support the application.

Member Bina stated he would support the application and thought the most important piece of evidence was the distinction between cellar and basement. The owner testified he needs to make money but the request was from the non-title owner who does not own the property. He thought this was a good case for zoning relief but he was concerned about procedural aspects.

Member Putzel stated she agreed but was struggling with the FAR issue. It is a 15,000 s.f. home and could be fit into the FAR. She was having trouble seeing this as a hardship because it is feasible.

Vice Chair Chaplik stated his thoughts were similar to Member Fettner and if they eliminated the basement they could end up with a concrete bunker or some kind of platform that would be worse looking than a gracefully tiered level with a basement. He saw the hardship and the standards being met. The FAR is a technicality in that from the street you will see a simple two-story house. If there were a home nearby in the rear area he would have been concerned about the rear elevation but the depth of the lot is enormous. He understood the height request and thought it met the standards for the variance because of the unusual nature of the lot and the FAR calculation is a quirk of the code. He would support the application.

Chair Henry agreed with the other members. He did not think jurisdiction was their problem and was up to City Council to consider. If this were a normal application that would be a different issue. Their job is to direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation with respect to the relief requested. He agreed with Member Fettner that this type of application is why the Board exists. It is a unique property, it is very deep and a good portion is unbuildable. He had some reservations with the FAR but it is skewed by the definitions that code requires to be applied. The drop of 16’ from the front to the rear is significant. Regarding the height, they have grade per code and grade from where you stand to where the house is going up. In this instance what is being proposed is not unreasonable but is reasonable for the property and he would support the relief being requested.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation to City Council approving the variations as requested. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik.

Planner Burhop stated in the past he has sent City Council the findings of fact directly, without coming back to Council.

Chair Henry stated there is no proposed report recommendation in front of them.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Bina, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair stated the motion carried 7-0.

Chair Henry asked Planner Burhop to prepare a report and recommendation for the next meeting.

Planner Burhop asked if he wanted this to come back for final approval.

Chair Henry stated yes.

Councilman Stolberg stated the applicant was trying to determine if Council wanted to get this on their next agenda and not require the applicant to come to another ZBA meeting.

Chair Henry stated they would not have to come back.

Planner Burhop stated the Board has a meeting on February 1 before the next Council meeting.

Mr. Bernstein asked if it could be approved by the chairman of the ZBA and suggested staff prepare findings and have it on the agenda for February 1 meeting. That would allow enough time so they do not miss the Council’s February 12th meeting.

Chair Henry stated he was more comfortable seeing a report before sending it on to Council.

Chair Henry stated Planner Burhop disseminates collectively, but they respond individually.

Councilman Stolberg stated it would be a value to Council. It is a complicated case and is why the Board exists. That was the reason Council voted to send it to the Board. As long as they can make it in time for next meeting it would be beneficial to all.

Chair Henry stated the direction is to prepare a report and recommendations in line with the comments made. Member Fettner addressed each of the standards and Planner Burhop should pay close attention to his comments when drafting the report and recommendation.

Planner Burhop stated the motion that was approved was to transmit findings of fact and the recommendation of approval for the application as presented to Council for the next available Council meeting. Planner Burhop stated he will send a copy to the Board. Planner Burhop stated this item will not come back to the ZBA; it will not be on a future agenda.

b. #18-01-VAR-002

Property: 1473 Sherwood Rd.

Zoning District: R5A

Appellant: Julie & Calvin Bernstein

1473 Sherwood Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, aerial view, photos, plat of survey, existing and proposed site plan, front yard relief, SBL relief, floor plan, elevations, other notes and requested variation.

Chair Henry asked if consents from neighbors on both sides were required.

Planner Burhop stated not in this case because the neighbor on the other side does not share the same west SBL.

Mr. Calvin Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Owner/Attorney, made a presentation including the driving request is they want an enclosed garage, are not changing the roof line, reasonable return, entire neighborhood has garages, modestly sized two-car garage, neighbors are supportive and they are not adding bulk.

Member Putzel stated the hardship is the lot is not a rectangle and having a two-car garage meets today’s living standards and she would support the application.

Member Cullather agreed and they are simply enclosing the existing roof line and he would support the application.

Member Bay agreed and stated it was a corner lot and they are enclosing an existing non- conforming use and he would support the application.

Member Fettner stated it is an existing non-conforming structure they are adding a couple of walls to and he would support the application.

Member Bina stated he would support the application.

Vice Chair Chaplik stated it meets the standards and he would support the application.

Chair Henry agreed it met the standards, is deminimus, they are enclosing a non- conforming roof line and he would support the application.

Chair Henry entertained a motion. Vice Chair Chaplik motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the variance as presented, seconded by Member Bina.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Bina, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry

Nays: None

The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.

Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Bina so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.

VII. Staff Report: None

VIII. Miscellaneous:

Chair Henry stated they had received a letter from Nancy Rosenbaum recognizing the work of the Board.

IX. Adjournment

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

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:05 pm.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=1971&Inline=True