City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met August 2.
Here is the agenda 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, Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry
Members Absent: Bina, Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Davis
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. Approval Of Minutes
The minutes for the 7-19-18 meeting were unavailable.
III. Publication Date For New Business: 7-18-18
IV. Business From The Public: None
V. Old Business:
1. #018-05-VAR-012
Property: 40 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Natasha Rumas
Address: 40 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation
Member Bay asked if they granted the variance and it became non-conforming they could not add
Planner Burhop stated if approved it cannot be changed to a deck without going through variation process.
Member Bay asked if a deck would make it bigger.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Chair Henry stated what you are addressing is that part of the structure that is encroaching on areas they are ordinarily allowed to expand on. When you turn it into
Member Bay asked if they had the authority to put it in the order to make it clear it would not prohibit the addition of a deck.
Chair Henry stated he would refer it to a successor board to determine the facts at the time. What is before he Board is just an expansion and not a rooftop. If it came back seeking a variation they would have to comply with the standards. He did not think he would be in favor of that limitation.
Councilman Stolberg stated if they wanted to make a change they would have to come back to the Board.
Planner Burhop stated he received an email from the neighbor to the south who was objecting to the deck. Burhop read the email. They stated they would not be able to attend the meeting tonight and were fine with the addition of the larger garage and objected only to the addition of a deck.
Ms. Natasha Rumas, 40 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL, made a presentation including reduced variance request, summary of hardship, tried to reduce vertical bulk with deck, consulted with architect, flat roof would work, neighboring homes have threecar garages, increasing property value, cannot yield reasonable return, reasonable use industry standard, no intention of building deck on top and recent approved garage variances.
Member Bay asked the reason why the garage addition will have a flat roof instead of a pitched roof.
Ms. Rumas stated the reason they added the deck for aesthetics and not adding additional bulk. The architect advised if they tried to extend the existing roof line they would be asking for a big encroachment. The architect stated this was the cleanest way of doing it.
Chair Henry asked to see the slide for the ravine.
Planner Burhop illustrated the two slides.
Mr. Glenn Seiden, 333 S. Wabash Chicago, IL, Attorney, stated his client had objected on two previous occasions, but no longer objects with the removal of the deck and the scaled down size to the three-car garage.
Member Cullather thanked everyone for their input and thought the property is unusual with constraints. It is on a ravine in a steep slope zone with a long driveway. He saw the hardship in the ability to expand the garage. He appreciated they have been responsive and would support the variance.
Member Fettner stated in the past meetings being in support of garage. He thought the lot created a number of hardships and he would support the variance.
Member Bay stated it is an interesting case. He was a little troubled by the possibility of this being used to achieve a deck. He would be more comfortable having something in the order that states if there are any further changes to the structure it would have to come before the Board. With that caveat he would support the variance.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated he would be more comfortable with an express condition that there would be no rooftop use of the garage. This would make it clear for future owners. With this condition he would support the variance.
Chair Henry thanked the applicant and Mr. Seiden for being responsive. He thought it met the standards and supports it. Regarding the restrictions he thought the code addresses it and if you start using the rooftop as a deck by definition it increases the bulk and would have to come before the Board. A part of this goes to enforcement which they have no control over. It falls to the City to enforce it and what the code allows. He thought the code addressed the issue and was not in favor of tying the hands of a future board once a variance is granted. The code deals with it and any altered use of the roof has to come before the Board. He would support the applicant, but not a provision in the variance approval order that ties the hands of a future board.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked how it would tie their hands in that they are free to grant another variance irrespective of our variance.
Planner Burhop stated there are two mechanisms that would prevent the applicant from changing it to rooftop deck. In the approval order it states except for minor changes and site work approved by the Director of Community development and City Engineer with applicable City standards and shall comply with the following plans. It is tied to the plans that do not show a rooftop deck. If plans do come forward with a rooftop deck he would recommend it is a substantial change and does need to come back to the Board. The other mechanism is based on the current interpretation of the section of code where if it went to a flat rooftop deck that would be a non-conforming structure and if a current or future owner wanted a rooftop deck it would require a building permit.
Chair Henry stated the draft variance approval order approves the application as amended and presented tonight. There is no deck in that application.
Member Bay stated he did see the downside. They have opined against a rooftop deck so why would they not state they did not want to see a rooftop deck in the future.
Mr. Seiden asked if it was possible in the order, if it was approved, it could be footnoted as to the discussions they are having now. This would accomplish both purposes without changing impact of order.
Chair Henry stated their order addresses the application as amended. The application before the Board tonight is one to enlarge a garage.
Councilman Stolberg stated the previous application had the deck proposed and the applicant came back with a revision that eliminated the deck. He asked if the issue was the deck.
Chair Henry stated the record reflects that, but what would come before the Board in the future may or may not come to attention of the Board.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the application. Member Cullather motioned to approve with the variances as submitted, seconded by Member Fettner.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the variance approval order. Vice Chair
Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner.
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
VI. New Business:
1. #18-07-VAR-018
Property: 189 S. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: Dawn & Paul LoCascio
Address: 189 S. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Davis made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, existing and proposed fence, property is a through lot, subdivision building line relief requirements, existing aerial, photos and requested variation.
Chair Henry asked when the fence was approved for the last application was it for both heights.
Planner Burhop stated the relief was identical and both exceeded the 4’ height.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked about the fence location. He asked if it was only 6’ on the south perimeter.
Planner Burhop stated it is all 6’. He stated the applicant could clarify this.
Member Bay stated the approval is contingent upon the Marcus’ requests.
Member Cullather stated there were two emails from the Marcus’. The first one was about the 3’ setback.
Planner Burhop stated the neighbors (Marcuses) did not want the applicant to connect and wanted the fences to be at least 3’ apart so they could access Sheridan Rd. The third comment concerned the existing shrubs along the property. Planner Burhop read the emails submitted by the Marcuses.
Member Bay stated they signed off on approving the request.
Member Cullather stated they have some changes. He asked where the shed is.
Planner Burhop illustrated this.
Chair Henry stated what they need to approve is the fence from 40’ setback line.
Planner Burhop stated the relief is for encroachment and height.
Chair Henry stated the height issue goes to the Sheridan Rd. fronting fence.
Planner Burhop stated it is all is 6’.
Chair Henry asked if they needed relief for the 6’ as well.
Planner Burhop stated there are two elements of relief, one for height and one for encroachment into the 40’ subdivision building line.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated it only talks about 6’ on the south side.
Planner Burhop stated the notice says to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of 4’ for a total height of 6’.
Chair Henry stated (i) states to encroach 40’ into the subdivision setback/building line and (ii) states to exceed the maximum permitted fence height of 4’ in a required front yard by 2’ for a total of 6’.
Member Bay stated as you go farther west on Sheridan Rd. homes begin to front Sheridan Rd. He asked how far down this was.
Planner Burhop illustrated where they front Sheridan Road by putting the GIS on the overhead televisinos.
Mr. Paul LoCascio, 189 S. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated it will only be 4’ where the Marcus’ are and they are not going to connect. The shed does not open to the side and he was not sure about their concern. There will be access to Sheridan Rd. The have three dogs and want to provide safety for them. They want to have the same fence as their neighbors.
Chair Henry asked if he would be willing to accept a requirement that there be at least 3’ between the fence and their neighbor’s shed.
Mr. LoCascio stated it is about 2’ between the shed and property line.
Chair Henry asked if the property line to the shed is 2’.
Mr. LoCascio yes and they will stay inside.
Chair Henry stated the Marcus’ are asking they not build the fence on the property line.
Mr. LoCascio stated the only part they are concerned about is the shed.
Chair Henry stated the Marcus’ have given their consent and asked if they would be amenable to this.
Mr. LoCascio stated yes.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked if they have any fences on Sheridan Rd. or the east side of their lot.
Mr. LoCascio illustrated where the only fence the people to the west have.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked if this was the Marcus’.
Mr. LoCascio stated yes.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked about the bushes.
Mr. LoCascio stated they have no plans to take them out.
Member Fettner stated he would support the application and had noissues with it. They have had properties like this on Lake Cook and Clavey and have granted a 6’ for safety reasons. For all intents this is a rear yard and should be allowed a 6’ fence. He thought it met the standards for granting a fence variance.
Member Bay stated he agreed and thought the standards were met.
Member Cullather agreed and thought the requirements had been met and appreciated the applicant’s response to the neighbors.
Vice Chaplik agreed and thought it met the standards.
Chair Henry agreed and thought it was straightforward. He appreciated the applicant’s response to the neighbor’s request.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the variation. Member Bay so motioned to approve the variance with the addition being it is subject to the request in the email received from the Marcus’ which includes the fact they would not prefer that a fence connect to the other side of the shed nor the fence be erected so close to the shed that prohibit them from accessing the shed. Seconded by Member Fettner.
Planner Burhop stated he would bring back a condition that it could not connect to the shed and that it not be so close that it would prohibit accessing the shed.
Chair Henry stated the applicant indicated that approximately 3’ would be acceptable.
Member Bay stated that was the intention of his motion.
Member Fettner accepted.
Planner Burhop stated he would recommend the Board consider adding those conditions.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Henry stated since the order needs to be revised they will take it up at the next meeting.
Planner Burhop stated this would be August 16.
Chair Henry stated the application has been approved. All they need is the specific language in the order. It needs to be accurate and they will address this on August 16. He asked a copy of the order be sent to Mr. & Mrs. LoCascio.
Member Bay asked if there could be a stipulation that there is no reason to delay the enforcement of the order.
Chair Henry stated they have not taken official action until they approve the variance order.
Councilman Stolberg asked if the permit has been applied for.
Chair Henry stated Mr. Passman has advised the Board that the official action of the Board is not approving the variation application, but the approval order.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked about a hand written approval order.
Chair Henry stated the variation order is subject to restrictions and provisions in Section B. He stated they could add (iii) stating the proposed fence shall not connect to the existing neighboring shed and shall be set back approximately 3’ from the aforesaid shed and the existing fence located on 183 S. Deere Park Dr.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the draft variance approval order as revised.
Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
2. #18-08-VAR-019
Property: 1010 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R54
Appellant: Michael N. Kauf and Brooke Kauf
Address: 312 N. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035
Member Fettner recused himself from this application and left the room.
Planner Davis made a presentation for the above item including location map, project background, existing and proposed site plan, photos, addition existing plan and addition proposed plan, aerial view and requested variation.
Planner Burhop stated the part that triggered relief is the second floor construction.
Planner Burhop explained the combined side yard and how it is calculated.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant is not encroaching into the steep slope zone but they are within an extra 10’ setback. You can build this within that setback.
Chair Henry asked if they proposing to build within 10’ of the ravine setback.
Planner Burhop stated the steep slope zone includes both the steel slope area and the 10’ setback. This is an extra 10’ setback and it is within the extra setback.
Member Bay asked what the relief encompassed.
Planner Burhop stated the relief is only for the combined side yards.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked if this is an extra 10’.
Planner Burhop stated it was.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant submitted existing and proposed plans. The plan submitted as existing is not what is actually there now and that is what they have a permit in for and will likely be approved by the Building Division any day or week.
Chair Henry asked if the plan submitted to the Building Dept. does not require a variation. They decided afterward to go with proposed plan which does require a variation.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Bay asked if the addition proposed was being submitted for an additional permit.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood, Highland Park, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including it is a unique lot, over two acres, almost a lot in depth, addition is 400’ from the street, building envelope is small for Highland Park, house is already encroaching 3’ into combined yard setback, want to increase non-conforming by going vertical, the architect was James Nagel (Chicago Seven), Crane’s did an article on the house, property was listed at $1.6M and reduced to $1.5M and sold for two-thirds of the listing price, the house is in terrible condition, applicants want to upgrade to 21st century living, house is not historical but worth saving, the corner piece is 21 s.f. and a deminimus amount.
Chair Henry asked if there was already a first floor structure including the encroachment.
Mr. Bernstein stated yes.
Mr. Mike Hershenson, 1580 Sherman, Evanston, IL, Architect, stated there is a significant amount of damage, trusses are sagging, owners are going out their way to save the structure, will include more space for office, owner works from home, has a handicapped daughter, it is structurally easier to go to the outside wall.
Member Bay asked if this is being submitted as a request for an additional permit.
Mr. Hershenson stated they are going to request an additional permit. The extra 10’ triggered the need for a drainage and grading plan.
Mr. Bernstein stated this is triggering the drainage and grading plan which will benefit the property. All the other work can be done as a matter of right. There will be no additional footprint.
Mr. Hershenson stated it would be a lot safer to square it off.
Mr. Bernstein stated regarding the standards it will improve the building structurally, will prevent the pooling of water, it is a legitimate reason not for convenience, property cannot yield a reasonable return in current condition, necessary to renovate the home, not a normal lot, it is a narrow lot, not materially detrimental to surroundings, set back 400’, will not alter essential characteristics of neighborhood, seeking to preserve a home that is important.
Member Bay asked if they had heard from the neighbors.
Mr. Bernstein stated they had not.
Member Cullather asked if a variance was granted when the first floor was built.
Planner Burhop stated they did not find a variation.
Mr. Bernstein stated he did some research on combined side yard setback and he recalled it was enacted sometime in the 1990s in response to the McMansions being built.
Vice Chair Chaplik asked if there was a FAR issue.
Planner Burhop stated they were well within the FAR.
Mr. Bernstein stated it is about a 6,700 s.f. house.
Member Bay stated most the standards are met and the only one that is a little borderline is the reasonable return without a variance. He would support the application.
Member Cullather stated he agreed and it meets the standards.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated he agreed and it meets the standards.
Chair Henry agreed and stated the house is in disrepair and it was interesting that the initial proposal would not have required a variation. The architect and Mr. Bernstein addressed this very well. There is already a footprint which is very compelling and it does not come close to exceeding bulk standards. To cut the room off would present other issues. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the application. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the approval order. He stated the approval order addresses the new proposed plan. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Cullather, Chaplik, Henry
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.
VII. Staff Report: None
VIII. Miscellaneous:
Member Fettner re-entered the room.
1. Presentation of Resolution to Charlie Gordon
Planner Burhop stated he would mail the resolution to Charlie’s parents.
2. Discussion of Curfew and Application Limit for Board Meetings
Chair Henry stated Member Bay and he are working on it.
3. Discussion on Continuance Guidelines
Member Bay stated he had worked with Planner Burhop to put together some draft language for guidelines with respect to continuance requests. They do not have to pass on it. It is not a bylaw or regulation and they had talked about adding it to the website so citizens and others who apply will understand that the Board has discretion with respect to whether a continuance will be granted. It cannot be assumed that a continuance will be granted when requested and there are certain things they look at.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated he liked that it was written as guidelines as opposed to rules.
Chair Henry stated the first paragraph under the request is continuance requests are subject to the discretion of the Board which sets out the parameter and gives some guidance.
Councilman Stolberg stated this is something they often talk about at Council and they want to be user friendly and do not want people to have paid professional or consultants to come to a meeting and say they did not know this was expected or important. If the applicant goes to website and sees this the will understand the process. He thought the third point could read the timing of notice given.
Chair Henry stated this would benefit the Board.
Mr. Bernstein stated he was somewhat torn on the issue. The Board is probably a lot of people’s introduction to Highland Park. The quorum call needs four votes and the applicant can feel somewhat uncomfortable. They could be forced to go to the hearing and it is an expensive process, over $700.00. The only alternate is to refile the application.
Chair Henry asked if this was a power they already had.
Mr. Bernstein stated they could vote no on the application.
Chair Henry stated the Board already has this authority. The intent is it gives the public a little more information. Every application for continuance is up to the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Bernstein stated they want to be welcoming and provide some guidance to applicants. If they do not have a full board historically they will grant a continuance because you need four votes.
Member Bay asked if this was too harsh or should there be a specific right to a continuance in certain circumstances.
Member Cullather stated they discussed forum shopping and there was a case that took three meetings. They had to wait for the right makeup.
Chair Henry stated the Board pretty much bends over backward to make the process work for the citizens and also recognize their decisions are final and appealable to the Circuit Court.
Mr. Bernstein stated there had been no abuse but it is a slippery slope when you qualify when a continuance can be granted. He did not think the system had been broken.
Chair Henry stated their intent is try to give more information to the public so they understand that continuances are granted at the discretion of Board and they try to give people guidelines that are not etched in stone, but guidelines that they can look to gauge their situation. They all benefit when more of the Board is present.
Vice Chair Chaplik stated they have had situations where they have seen a matter a number of times and even with a short board they are prepared to act. He would not want that flexibility taken away.
Member Bay stated he wanted to prevent abuses where there are matters continued so many times and on short notice and neighbors who come and then have to leave somewhat angry.
Mr. Bernstein stated the point about late submittals is well taken because the more information you have in the packet the better. Situations are unique and the applicant should be able to submit within 48 hours of the meeting. The bottom line is that there areseven members and this is the only board of final determination in Highland Park. If they do not have all the members is it fair to the applicants.
Chair Henry stated they do not have to act on officially and suggested Mr. Bernstein put some of his ideas in writing and submit them to the Board. Member Bay worked hard on this and the intent is not to lay down rules for applicants, but to give some guidance so they do not assume they are going to get something they may not.
Mr. Bernstein stated this is a good conversation to have and he will look at this closely and talk to Planner Burhop.
Member Cullather asked he not only keep his attorney hat on, but his resident hat as well.
Chair Henry stated he could wear more than one hat - one as an applicant, one as the public, one as an interested member of the public and one as a board member.
IX. Adjournment
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:40 pm.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2067&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up