City of Highland Park Plan and Design Commission met Jan. 15.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Vice Chair Reinstein called the meeting to order and asked Director Fontane to call the roll.
II. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Glazer, Kutscheid, Leaf, Pearlstein, Reinstein
Members Absent: Hecht
Director Fontane took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Cross, Fontane
Student Rep.: Rubin
Council Liaison: Blumberg, Passman
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 18, 2018
Minutes for the December 18, 2018 regular meeting will be placed on the February 5, 2019 agenda.
IV. SCHEDULED BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing #18-12-ZTA-005 for Proposed Text Amendments to Chapter 150, the City of Highland Park Zoning Ordinance of 1997 (as amended), Related to Public and Private Covenants, Easements, and Restrictions, and Subdivision Building Lines (also known as Subdivision Setback Lines).
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including introduction, background, example plats of subdivision, policy discussion, summary of text amendment proposal and recommendation.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked where a porch or a deck would go.
Planner Burhop illustrated this.
Director Fontane stated currently it would not be allowed.
Mr. Passman asked if staff’s proposal that porches, etc. be permitted as of right within the incremental area or would it still require a variation.
Planner Burhop stated as of right with a permit.
Mr. Passman asked if staff intends to retain the notion that a variation would be necessary for floor area encroachment either within the incremental area or into the setback.
Planner Burhop replied yes.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked whose requirement this was. Planner Burhop stated the zoning code.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked why it was put in place.
Planner Burhop stated the requirement for subdivision building line dates from 1997. In 2003 or 2004 the code was amended and when someone wanted relief it had to be a Compere referral. In 2004 they decided to reduce that process and it just went to the ZBA. It was then the current language was put in there and that the adjacent property owner had to sign off on it.
Director Fontane stated it might have had to do with the ZBA’s list of 14 standards they have to consider. Things that are not on this list follow through with a Compere referral. Council may have included this provision as a way to reconcile that they will empower the ZBA to consider these things if the neighbor consents. It curtails that authority a bit and provides the neighbor consent. The proper locus would be whether or not Council will grant the ZBA the authority to consider these things on their own as one of the 14 standards they have jurisdiction over.
Commissioner Glazer complimented Planner Burhop on his presentation. He cautioned the new student rep that it was not always this dry. He asked what is driving the proposal and why are they doing this now. Was there a particular presentation staff was having difficulty with that drew attention to this issue.
Planner Burhop stated in general when you work with the code on a daily basis you keep track of where there are issues and bring them to the attention of management.
Commissioner Glazer stated he was on the ZBA and remember some of these issues but it did not strike him as heavy enough that they would consider changing the system. He asked if there was a particular case that brought this to the attention of making a change.
Mr. Passman stated it is a cumulative effect of a handful of properties where it does not cut cleanly on a variety of issues. The issue of consent of abutters before the application can be heard is a significant issue. If they do nothing else they concur with the City’s recommendation to minimally remove the requirement for adjacent property owner consent. This came to a head and they decided to analyze this. They looked at the law and as a result staff has proposed this.
Director Fontane stated in cases of these situations it consumes a lot of staff time and there have been cases where a consideration has been made and after a decision people want to withdraw their consent based on what the ZBA did. They have spent considerable amount of time on some of these cases.
Commissioner Leaf asked if this was mostly for single family developments.
Planner Burhop stated it was for any plat within the City which encompasses single- family, multi and industrial. It comes up predominantly for single family.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if it made sense to limit this to single family.
Planner Burhop stated they are not changing any of the normal zoning requirements. He thought it should be applicable to all zoning districts.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the original reason was to create an aesthetic conformity to the construction of a subdivision. He asked if by allowing construction to happen in that space beyond that line does that disrupt the aesthetic conformity.
Planner Burhop stated to an extent they know the purpose of a subdivision building line is to limit construction within the setback. What they do not know is what was it supposed to be limiting. They agree it is for an aesthetic purpose. If they just change the enforcement to just treating them like they do with required zoning yards the biggest aesthetic change would be allowing 4’ fences within front yards. The second change is only where building line is greater that the zoning yards staff is proposing is that structures be allowed that are not buildings.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if the space is 12.5’ could someone build a 12.5’ porch on the front of the house. Would that change the aesthetic of the street.
Planner Burhop stated that is what staff is proposing. These types of structures can be aesthetically pleasing and they are changing view line.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if was of historic significance having the street feel. He asked if it was a designed landscape.
Mr. Passman stated it might have been. Most of these are very old plats and were not planned developments.
Director Fontane stated it is a good point. There was the intent to create a yard or an area in which there would be building. People are looking to use their land in some way that is not building a house. It is adding on to the front of a home in a reasonable way.
Planner Burhop stated they run into this all the time. Over time canopies, porches and porticos just occur.
Councilman Blumberg stated there are historic districts in Highland Park and one element of that might be the appearance of the street. He asked if it would be appropriate to propose a different standard to apply to those districts.
Director Fontane stated they need have a certificate of appropriateness.
Councilman Blumberg asked if this would even be for an improvement for the yard. Director Fontane replied yes.
Commissioner Leaf asked if this was anything external.
Director Fontane replied yes.
Councilman Blumberg asked if this included subdivision of the yard.
Director Fontane they need make sure to verify that, but the local historic would require a certificate of appropriateness from the Historical Preservation Commission. It may also require a variance.
Commissioner Leaf asked if they had any examples how this affects multi-family or commercial structures.
Director Fontane stated staff is not proposing to allow buildings to be in the setback lines without variations.
Commissioner Leaf asked if this had come up before.
Director Fontane stated not that he remembered. A multi-family might want to have a turn around drop off on front of the building that had an overhang. They are talking about allowing fences in areas 4’ high in the front yard.
Commissioner Glazer asked if the effect of building lines has been to insure uniformity for 50-60 years and now someone might be able to construct an unsightly porch or something else disruptive. Is that the kind of thing they should be able to do as of right vs. still requiring ZBA approval.
Director Fontane stated this is for the Commission to deliberate. This is seen as a modest relief valve. Someone could put on a larger porch that could be problematic. There may be some other means and language or just require a variance.
Commissioner Glazer stated he would rather deal with before it happens than after.
Commissioner Pearlstein stated her children bought a Victorian mansion and in the course of living there they found a picture of when it was first built. It had a fabulous porch and they wanted to restore it which they eventually did. There has to be something where both parts are addressed where the people who are beautifying their homes have the opportunity and to protect from the people who are making it worse.
Director Fontane they want to hear from the Commission. The reason staff did not say building lines are private agreements and the City is not obligated to enforce them. As planners they see there is a land use aesthetic. The question is how much will be allowed in terms of other types of things people like to do with their homes.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated on page 6 of the packet there is a notation at the bottom that names examples of neighborhoods that are impacted. He would like to take a ride down some of these roads to understand what the parameters are. What is the building line setback, what would the established building setback be.
Planner Burhop stated he has such an exhibit but it was not included in the packet and can be finalized for a future meeting if needed.
Director Fontane stated it would be good to take a look at some of these areas. They are not asking for a final vote tonight.
Commissioner Leaf mentioned the Solo Cup presentation and there was some restriction regarding a difference of opinion between Community Development and the developer. He asked if something like this was a similar situation.
Director Fontane stated building lines are called out on plat and the code specifically says they shall enforce building lines. Not all things that show on plats are that way and they are not all building lines. Those are private restrictions that the City zoning code does not supersede. They stand on their own and zoning is independent and that regulation also pertains. The Solo Cup 100’ tree buffer that is shown on the document. That is a discretionary review process and the City wants to see that it is in place as buffer. It is a PUD and they believe that is a valid concern as part of the PUD process.
Mr. Tom Iverson, 491 Ridge, Highland Park, IL, mentioned they have lived in their house for 22 years, two driveways meet not shared, neighbor parks in driveway and destroys plantings, have had police out, has been running over barriers they put in, wants to know what to know what they could install, have installed security cameras, want to put fence down driveway to define driveways, neighbor is abutter, wants to use driveway, not much they can do, only solution is to install a fence down driveway.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if he was in a subdivision with lines.
Planner Burhop stated Mr. Iverson came into the office and wants to put in fence in between the two driveways. There is a building line and you cannot put in a structure and a fence is a structure.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if the garages were in back of the lots.
Mr. Iverson stated he does not have a garage and neighbor has single car garage in the driveway. It is a situation of trying to put too many cars in one area. He did not care how many cars there were as long as he stays in his driveway.
Commissioner Leaf asked if by right could Mr. Iverson install an 11” high barrier with 1” high sharp spikes.
Planner Burhop stated spikes are prohibited according to the nuisance chapter. Otherwise the proposed structure, without spikes, could go up to 12” in height.
Mr. Iverson stated they had planters and the neighbor drove over them and shrugged his shoulders. They put in cinder blocks, which he did not want to, and the neighbor still tried to smash those. He said is was kind of effective. He does not want an altercation, property damage or the police coming. He wants to put up a fence the City deems appropriate.
Mr. Passman stated there are probably a lot more of these which have accumulated over the years but he had no knowledge of this one. If there is a private restriction on a plat even if the City approved it there may be an action among neighbors. What they are seeing now is that in some cases a neighbor that does not want to consent to an encroachment is using the existing code as bludgeon. The City can only enforce what is in the code. He thought that the rule an abutter must consent should be relegated to history. The only other change he thought was a good change was the clarification that this would apply only for subdivision building lines on a document approved by the City.
Commissioner Glazer stated he had not heard any disagreement with doing away with the abutter’s veto. He thought is made sense from a policy perspective. He asked does it do good to move forward piecemeal on this and vote while they consider other kinds of changes to the property should be subject to ZBA approval.
Mr. Passman stated he had no concerns from a legal perspective. Vice Chair Reinstein stated he was in favor of this. Commissioner Kutscheid stated it was a good idea.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated they would be deciding at a future date whether someone who wants to build something between the street and the plat building line what process they would have to go through. This process would be free of the neighbor consent requirement. He asked about the choices of the different processes for different improvements.
Planner Burhop stated right now if there is a subdivision building line and anyone wants to build something greater than 12” they have to go to the ZBA and have the written consent of the neighbor.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated what they would do by removing the abutter is that if they want to do something that is between the plat of subdivision line and the street you go to the ZBA. He asked if the neighbor receives notice.
Planner Burhop replied they do.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated the ZBA has a whole set of rules on how they do things. Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Commissioner Glazer stated it is a cumbersome process and they had heard Mr. Iverson who lives where there is no setback and does not have to ask the ZBA to build a 4’ fence. Without the veto power he would still have to go through the process and ask the ZBA for approval and you do not know what is going to happen. They have the ability to recommend certain of the requirements be taken out of the process. Maybe they still want to have porches, etc. subject to ZBA approval, but why should someone in the neighborhood where there happens to be a setback go for approval for a 4’ fence where someone across the street may not have to ask for approval.
Commissioner Leaf stated he thought staff recommendation was to exclude fences.
Planner Burhop stated there are two ways to look at it – what staff is proposing for the area that is the same as the established building setback line and for those areas staff is recommending that they treat the building line the exact same as the current zoning yards are. The simplest recommendation is to say let’s treat building lines like zoning yards. The biggest issue is fences.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the design review process does not affect single-family residential and that the ZBA is not the best place to bring aesthetic concerns.
Planner Burhop stated where there is a building line fences are not allowed.
Director Fontane stated staff is struggling with the question does the City chose to opt to allow a non-descript building line pertain to every structure that could be built.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated over the last 100 years there has been a building line in some subdivisions that has been respected and that the development has been developed to that line.
Director Fontane stated staff has said they do not want any buildings to violate that. They are wrestling with how much of a private restriction do they want to take on in enforcing.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated they could drive down a street and see if there are any porches.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated it is obvious a subdivision has been developed per the building line.
Director Fontane stated to the extent these other structures that are not buildings are not in keeping with that, you could say you should not be able to build in those areas. If the plat says something that further defines they could go with that.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated the design code they work with allows a lot of leeway by the Commission. They want to extend that leeway to say that in this instance it makes sense for that person to install a porch.
Commissioner Leaf asked if they were out of their lane because this is single-family and they are multi-family, commercial.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated they also have jurisdiction on subdivisions of greater than “x” amount of lots. The Sherwood subdivision was designed with a building setback line.
Councilman Blumberg stated it is their lane because they have to approve the zoning code amendment the ZBA will enforce. They do not hear issues affecting single-family for the most part. They hear issues involving zoning text amendments. They have to consider how they want the ZBA to proceed in the single-family realm.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated it is an aesthetic concern.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated design review does not do single-family homes. He stated they have made progress on the abutter’s consent and now they are trying to determine the process. Commissioner Glazer pointed out that the ZBA is still more onerous than what the average homeowner has to do to put a fence up in their front yard. He asked if they could make the rule so that fence people go through another process that is more by right or easier than a deck or porch person has to do.
Director Fontane stated they can bring back the standards for the ZBA.
Commissioner Glazer asked if they can provide a recommendation that says fence cases are as of right.
Mr. Passman stated yes, if the recommendation is that fences that go across a subdivision building line do not need a variation, but go through a staff review process and everything across that line still has to go through a variation without consent. That is an absolute valid policy.
Commissioner Leaf stated there were a few other items beside fences – yard lights, stoops, steps and ramps. He asked if they want to define every one of these to include along with fences since they are minor.
Director Fontane stated ramps can be significant and can become a practical need.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated he understood why some would add a ramp but when would steps come into play.
Planner Burhop stated people fight for all the buildable area they can get and are looking for every inch.
Vice Chair Reinstein asked if a stoop is an overhang at the front door.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Director Fontane stated there was concern from the Commission about porches because they can be the full extent of the house or modest. It could have a profound effect on the way a house looks.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated on the list he has circled yard lights and ramps maybe not in the same category as a fence, stoop and a step. He asked if there were regulations on how a step could be done.
Commissioner Leaf asked for a definition of all those items.
Planner Burhop stated he could provide this.
Councilman Blumberg stated they may want to restrict how large an encroachment is. Mr. Passman stated they may want to look on page 14 of the packet.
Director Fontane stated the thought behind this is the City has considered aesthetic things that people thought of in the subdivisions that have building lines. The City has said they care about setbacks. They also understand there is a reasonable relief valve. There are certain things they allow to protrude into this area that make sense. Building lines are not really defined.
Planner Burhop stated they are trying to strike a balance in the blue shaded area between continued enforcement of the building line but flexibility for a property owner for a line that is not necessarily defined. Variations have been granted which are various forms of encroachment granted by the ZBA. Some of the plats are from the 20s, 30s and 40s and are exceptions through time.
Commissioner Leaf asked if a building line setback were to appear on an old plat what would be the next steps as far as research.
Planner Burhop stated anytime someone wants to do an improvement they have to submit a building permit with a plat of survey. They check every survey with the original plat to see if there is a building line and how it is defined.
Commissioner Leaf asked if it is super onerous. Planner Burhop stated it just depends.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated they were ready where they can make some decisions and ask for findings of fact for abutters consent, and opt to also handle the splitting of what process the applicant goes to, the ZBA or the zoning code will be applied to them. There are other improvements and what they should with them – do they go to the blue zone or they could say all other improvements would go to the ZBA. He wanted to think this over. He felt strongly about the abutter’s consent and the fence, stoop and step. He was not sure what direction to give staff.
Commissioner Kutscheid stated he was curious as to the impact of a fence on the subdivision and what that would do to the way it looks on the street.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated maybe they could do just the abutter’s consent tonight. He stated they could leave the rest for the next meeting. He asked when this is resubmitted for a very clear and lucid proposal on what the choices are.
Commissioner Glazer stated he thought each of the elements should be treated on their own. He did not think stoops are the equivalent of fences.
Director Fontane stated this was good feedback and they would bring back this information along with the standards used to evaluate by the ZBA. He suggested the item they do want to make a recommendation is directing staff to draft findings.
Vice Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to direct staff to draft findings of fact recommending approval of striking the ‘abutter consent requirement’ and provide the text amendment language. Commissioner Pearlstein so motioned.
Mr. Passman stated they could include a date continue the remainder of hearing. Director Fontane stated they could put it on the next meeting.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated there was not a lot for February 5th.
Mr. Passman asked if this was part of the motion.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated there was a motion to strike the abutter’s consent and to continue the public hearing to February 5th.
Commissioner Pearlstein concurred.
Director Fontane will provide as much information as they can on February 5th.
Commissioner Leaf seconded.
Ayes: Pearlstein, Leaf, Kutscheid, Glazer, Reinstein
Nays: None
Motion passed 5-0.
V. OTHER BUSINESS
The next meeting is February 5th.
Included are:
- Public hearing for the inclusionary housing policy.
- The other public hearing may be for the continuation of the subdivision setback item.
- There are two discussion items - Briergate zoning district review and land uses in the Briergate district.
- Legal training with Mr. Passman.
Director Fontane stated when they come back regarding the Briergate zoning this is part of some research work staff has done as part of a red flag resolution adopted by Council. It is looking at what does the City see for this area related to the zoning district.
Commissioner Kutscheid asked if marketing was part of the discussion. He asked if the City was trying to recruit.
Director Fontane stated they are talking about land use considerations and where the City sees this going.
Vice Chair Reinstein stated an inventory of who is there and what kind of zoning it required would be helpful.
Director Fontane stated the focus of what they are presenting is the Jewel Osco area and also talking about what happens with Solo Cup. He stated is it a utility area and very vibrant as it is.
Commissioner Leaf asked if they would have City Council feedback as far as changing the I to maybe multi-family residential.
Director Fontane stated the red flag amendment about zoning in the Briergate district of which there is significant I zoning. The focus is B3 and the uses and Briergate zoning in general. They will take a look at B3 zoning what should it be.
Commissioner Leaf asked about a timeline for the Solo Cup project and if City Council will have weighed in as far as the land use change before they have to deliberate.
Director Fontane stated he did not know.
Commissioner Leaf asked Councilman Blumberg for some feedback regarding Solo Cup and the land use change.
Director Fontane stated in 2018 they went to the Committee of the Whole and talked about some alternate and Council felt this area should become a mixed use area.
VI. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC
None.
VII. STAFF REPORT
None.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chair Reinstein entertained a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Leaf so motioned, seconded by Commissioner Pearlstein. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Plan and Design Commission adjourned at 9:20 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2151&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up