City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met July 18.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Chaplik called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: Bay, Bina
Planner Later took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: Edheimer
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 6, 2019
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the June 6, 2019 meeting. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Henry. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
June 20, 2019
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the June 20, 2019 meeting. Member Henry mentioned a correction on page 12 of the packet on Item 3, 1895 Clavey Rd., “Vice Chair Cullather motioned to continue to July 18, Member Henry so motioned.” It should read “Member Henry seconded.” Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 7-3-19
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS:
1. #19-05-VAR-012
Property: 183 S. Deere Park Dr.
Zoning District R5
Appellant: Harvey Marcus
Address: 183 S. Deere Park Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035
Chair Chaplik asked Planner Burhop to refresh the Board on the above item.
Planner Burhop stated the Board directed staff to draft an approval order for the variations as requested and also directed to include an updated site plan that depicted not only the proposed improvements, but also the gate proposed to be removed as well. The applicant has provided two exhibits to that extent in the packet. Corporate Counsel assisted in drafting this approval order.
Member Henry stated it is reflected in the language of the order. Member Putzel asked if there was anything new.
Chair Chaplik stated it was just the order.
Planner Burhop stated it was just the order with the two new exhibits which do depict both the new proposal and the structures proposed to be removed. Planner Burhop stated the exhibits while new did not depict anything new or changed from what was presented in the previous ZBA hearing on this application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to adopt the drafted approval order. Member Henry motioned to adopt the variance approval order submitted in draft as drafted, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Members Fettner and Putzel stated they had reviewed the minutes and watched the video. Ayes: Putzel, Henry, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion carried 5-0.
2. #19-05-VAR-013
Property: 1895 Clavey Rd.
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Sean and Catheriya Curran
Address: 1895 Clavey Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, lot-in- depth, project background, revised floor plan, elevations, revised elevations and photos.
Member Henry asked about the schematic on the patio.
Planner Burhop stated this was the revised one.
Member Henry asked if previously it jutted out.
Planner Burhop stated it was the same dimension as the one proposed. The difference is that the applicant removed the permanent grill and outdoor kitchen improvements.
Chair Chaplik asked about an overlay of the footprint of new deck.
Planner Burhop stated the best he had was the existing and proposed plans side-by-side and moved to this slide on the presentation.
Chair Chaplik asked if the existing deck was in disrepair would they have been allowed to build the same deck.
Planner Burhop stated if the existing deck was destroyed by fire or tornado or other force majeure they would be allowed to rebuild it the same size or a smaller size deck, since the existing deck is considered a legal non-confirming structure.
Vice Chair Cullather stated part of what was driving the depth was the fire code in order to fit the stove in.
Planner Burhop stated there is a 10’ setback required between certain flammable equipment. The application has revised the plans and there is an updated hardship letter.
Member Henry stated he recalled the fire code requirement and that was why the deck was coming out farther then would ordinarily allowed. He understood the floor plan for the deck has not changed and it still encroaches the same way it did last time but there is no grill.
Planner Burhop concurred.
Mr. Calvin Bernstein, Attorney representing the Applicants, made a presentation including they need to talk about the hardship and how it impacts the request, they could build an at grade patio farther west than the proposed deck, to do at grade patio they would have to change the grade, three doors empty out onto deck and this does not make sense, if it collapsed it could be replaced by a legal non-conforming structure, encroachment not any larger than existing deck, existing deck is deteriorating, significant grade change makes it difficult to do anything, no record of variance, City considers it a legal non-confirming structure, if rebuilt it has to be usable space, mature trees, small dining room, built in 1980s, really need 14’ wide to get around, need room for handicap accessibility, outdoor space 14’ is minimum, proximity to kitchen, need to maneuver around grill with hot items, did not create hardship, unique situation regarding topography of property, if they cannot rebuild they cannot get a reasonable return because they will have three doors to nowhere, matter of safety, no additional bulk, no structure, 50-60’ to neighbors, no issues with neighbors, area they use as outdoor space, alternate is to change grade, water flow, very wet have drain next to deck taking stormwater, deck will not change this, cannot get reasonable return without replacing, have to replace, deck is deteriorating, lot-in-depth, not looking to exceed 12’ side yard, this is how house was built, it is an infill property, trying to create outdoor space that can be used, will not alter essential character of the neighborhood.
Member Putzel stated she thought it met the requirements, the grill and fire seemed to be the problem which has been taken off the table, the deck needs to be repaired, no drainage issues, cannot get reasonable return without replacing deck, makes more sense to make it straight across and they did not create this. Due to the topography she thought it met the standards, and would not affect the light. She stated she would support the application.
Member Fettner stated he watched the video. He thought it met the standards and a lot-in- depth creates issues. He did not think the topography made it impossible to build a patio but the size is not useable. He thought it created a number of hardships and the applicant put together a persuasive argument that it meets the standards.
Member Henry stated he was not as convinced. They can rebuild the deck and he was not convinced that it needs to encroach. The big issue when they last heard the application was that it was driven by the fire code. They are taking the outdoor kitchen out but the dimensions are the same. He remained to be convinced.
Vice Chair Cullather stated it would be easier if the footprint had shrunk as well. It is a lot-in-depth, the deck needs to be replaced, and it will not be visible to the neighbors. He was inclined to support the application.
Chair Chaplik stated he was more in favor now than before due to the hardship of the grade of the land and it is a unique situation. The water flow drains on the side of the house to accommodate this house and also neighboring homes. There is an easement for drainage. He did not mind squaring it off and it is logical given that the trees are gone. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Student Rep. Edheimer stated he would support the application and agreed with the other members. He did not think it would impair the light.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the variance as submitted. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: Henry
The Chair declared the motion passed 4-1.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion regarding the approval order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order as drafted by staff. Member Fettner seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: Henry
The Chair declared the motion passed 4-1.
Planner Burhop stated he would follow-up with the applicants tomorrow, on Friday.
NEW BUSINESS:
#19-03-VAR-009
Property: 1388 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District R5
Appellant: Maximillian Vitek
Address: 1388 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL
Planner Burhop made a presentation made a presentation for the above item including site location, undersized corner lot, project background, aerial image, photos, existing survey, proposed site plan, established building setback, elevations, alternate site plan, additional notes, Forestry review and request.
Member Putzel asked if Forest Ave. was not technically a front yard setback, but a side yard setback, what would the required side yard would be there in that situation.
Planner Burhop stated it would be about 22’. There would be a 40’ front yard requirement, a 22’ rear yard requirement, and for the side yard a minimum of 9’. The other one would be 9’ to 9.75’.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they were going to move the garage to the location they desire but make it a detached garage, would there be any difference.
Planner Burhop stated it would still require relief. He stated you cannot have it in the front yard and not in the side yard. If the property had a rear yard a detached garage can go as close as 3’. This property does not have a rear yard, as defined in the Zoning Code.
Mr. Ted Edel, neighbor, stated they are good neighbors and he admires the plans but was uncomfortable with the following issues: placement of proposed garage within 2’ of the property line, old garage is also 2’ from property line but to the side, moves garage in the middle, trees - concern about heritage oak, moving garage farther east to protect the oak puts the corner of the garage close to a maple tree. Telephoned the Forester who said they had been responsive about the trees but he could not cannot guarantee that construction work around the maple will not kill it. They cannot put the trees a risk. The best thing for the roots is to position the garage in the required 9’ from the property line. Their dining room and kitchen face north and they can see along Forest Ave. The garage is big – 22’ long with a peaked roof of 9’. Their house is 21’ from the property line and new proposal would put wall of garage 23’ away from his windows. Will block most of their view and damage sense of airiness and space. Abiding by 9’ setback that distance would become 30’ instead of 23’. The difference of 7’ means the garage would be 30% farther away than in the plan. The wall would introduce a negative element but definitely less intrusive and preserving more of the view. The increase in distance would make the street view more appealing. He was concerned a future buyer might lose some enthusiasm seeing a neighbor so close to the property line on the north side. This could affect the appeal and salability of his house. What if it was torn down and the builder wanted to go closer to the property line with the home that would replace his. The reason for the 9’ rule is it guarantees 18’ between the houses. They like the Viteks and want them to improve their property, but not at the expense of his. The building code was written to address these situations. He thought there was a solution if the mud room and breezeway were reduced and the garage moved. He hoped a solution could be found.
Member Henry asked if they have had conversations with the neighbors about a compromise plan.
Mr. Edel stated his wife talked to them a couple of days ago and told them they were coming to the meeting.
Member Henry stated it makes life easier if neighbors can agree on a course of action and a compromise is worked out.
Mr. Edel stated it seemed like it would be too emotional because the Viteks want this and he wants the neighbor 9’ away from the property line.
Mrs. Stephanie Mies, neighbor, stated the plans changed and in the beginning they thought it was alright with the previous plans. They never intended to be fighting and they reason they did not negotiate is that it did not seem there was anything to talk about. When they got the gist of the plans changing they realized where the garage was going to be. Their whole wall of windows would be blocked by the garage. She thought they were capable of working with the Viteks to make it work out.
Mr. Maximillian Vitek, Applicant, stated they would like to take some time to talk to them about this and have not had the opportunity to do so.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they wanted a continuance.
Planner Burhop stated they could continue to a date specific. Future meetings are August 1st, August 15th and then in September. He asked if August 15th worked for the applicant.
Mr. Vitek stated that would be a little tight due to vacations.
Planner Burhop stated the first date in September was the 5th. Mr. Vitek stated that worked.
Vice Chair Cullather motioned to continue to September 5th, seconded by Member Henry. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
Planner Burhop stated there would be no new mailed notice, and the application would be considered on Thursday, September 5 at the regularly scheduled ZBA meeting.
2. #19-05-VAR-015
Property: 175 Ravine Dr., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R4 & Lake Front Density & Character
Overlay Zone Appellant: James & Abigail Sayegh
Address: 175 Ravine Dr., Highland Park, IL
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, aerial location, project background, previous board/commission/group/council considerations, the SAG recommended condition of approval, photos, existing conditions, proposed site plan, SSZ review, existing topography map, Zoning Code Consideration: Height, buildable area, proposed south elevation, east elevation, Forestry and Engineering review and relief requested.
Chair Chaplik stated they discussed at the last meeting the future and how to handle the Sustainability Advisory Group (SAG) and some changes. This is an example of a type of application and the package from the SAG is extremely helpful. Without the information is it difficult to get a handle on how to consider this type of application. It is very valuable to the Board to have their involvement.
Councilman Stolberg thanked Chair Chaplik for this information.
Member Putzel asked if the proposed deck is the front yard.
Planner Burhop stated even the deck, which is proposed to be attached behind the home, needs relief to the required front yard. Planner Burhop stated this is because the existing home is mostly located within the required front yard already – it is legal nonconforming and was constructed in 1927 according to the County Assessor data.
Chair Chaplik stated the deck is not being built in the back yard, but because of the nature of the property it is being built in front of the buildable area.
Member Henry stated it shows one of the quirks of how the zoning code addresses properties that are challenged.
Mr. James Sayegh, Applicant, stated he is a preservationist and loves the house and the history. The whole project is a valentine to the house. This is the culmination of a very long process. It is zoning non-compliant, landmarked and in the SSZ. There are water infiltration issues with the house and the reconstruction of Ravine Dr. was marvelous with installation of a high velocity drain in the curb to try and stop the water. Saving the house for his family and future generations is priority. He has sand bags in front of the garage at all times. They have to balance a lot of interests and they have won preservation awards. Mr. Dan Creaney did a good job and they received unanimous support from SAG. Planner Burhop said it was conditioned and in working with them and trying to get a foundation poured this season they could work with the Forester. He was grateful to his neighbors and all have extended their support. The categories for relief are interesting and the 40’ setback is behind the house. Their plight is unique and they would not find another situation like this in Highland Park. They moved the garage back and respect the front yard setback and the history of the house. The flat roof is a homage to a previous addition on the east side which had a flat roof you could walk out on. This replaces the deck which is in further non-conformity with the SSZ. The 40’ setback and lake front zoning applies to the south side of Ravine Dr. but does not contemplate the north side. It is less than 32’ and lower than the dominant roof line of the house. The other side of Ravine Dr. is on lower land. They are trying to create something that is a nod to Mr. Pingrey. The extra height is there to create an aesthetic. They received SAG approval and love the house and want to save it. They need the amenities of a two-car garage, dining room and a master bath.
Member Fettner stated it was a good presentation and it could be his favorite hardship letter. The property clearly has a hardship on top of hardship. They are not going for a three-car garage and are trying to minimize what to get out of the property yielding as much reasonable return to meet the standards. They want to have a livable updated house and they have put time and effort into the plans and mitigating the encroachment. He thought the presentation hit the standards and with the advisory committees’ approval he would support the application.
Member Putzel agreed the packet was extensive and the presentation emphasized the information. She thought the applicant had a passion and was very much vested. She thought it met the standards for the variations and it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is tough being on the SSZ and it is a big investment. She thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Member Henry stated it was a fascinating application and the most detailed. The passion of the applicant is evident and the property is a challenge. The only part that is buildable is part of the deck. He thought the applicant had done his due diligence. He was concerned about the two-story addition and not sure it had the same attraction as some of the other parts. He thought it was one of the most complete, well thought out and detailed applications on a property that is so limited. He would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and liked learning about the property and seeing the applicant’s vision in updating the home. He did not think the applicant had over asked. An attached two-car garage is reasonable and saw where the two-story addition fits in the plans. He would approve the request.
Chair Chaplik agreed and regarding an historic home, the zoning code does not provide guidance for historic homes. He thought it was the right thing to do for the home and met all the standards for a variation. He would support the application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order granting the variance with the SAG recommended condition, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop stated the draft order contained the condition provided by Forestry and recommended by the Sustainability Advisory Group.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Henry, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to adopt the order. Member Putzel so motioned to adopt the order as written, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Henry, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the motion passed 5-0.
Planner Burhop stated he would follow-up with the applicant tomorrow, on Friday.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated he had no update on the SSZ/SAG text amendment.
Chair Chaplik asked Councilman Stolberg if he had any information about any of the zoning code changes.
Councilman Stolberg stated not yet.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Planner Burhop stated the FY2020 ZBA Work Plan was ready for consideration and adoption.
Chair Chaplik asked if it was consistent with prior years.
Planner Burhop stated it was exactly the same as last year except for an increase in cable TV broadcast for 25 meetings instead of 24 meetings. This would allow the ZBA a special meeting if necessary.
Chair Chaplik asked if they need to formally adopt this by motion.
Planner Burhop stated yes, and the item was properly noticed on the Agenda for consideration and adoption.
Member Henry stated there should by funds for training. Most of the Board knows little or nothing about zoning. He thought the work is appealable to the court. When they come on the Board and do not have a background in this kind of work it would be advisable to have some training. He would be interested in what the other Board members thought.
Member Putzel stated she thought there should be something in the budget for it. Chair Chaplik stated he had a session with Mr. Passman when he first started. Member Putzel stated she had a video.
Member Henry stated he had nothing and one of the first orders of business was a patio and ice rink. He did not know if there was training out there and what it would cost. He thought it would behoove Council to explore it and if it required an outlay maybe it would be worthwhile.
Chair Chaplik asked if Mr. Passman had any resources, written or video, that might be beneficial.
Councilman Stolberg stated he remembered when he joined the Plan Commission how nervous he was and they were a recommending body. Training does not necessarily have to come from Corporate Counsel. When he was on the Plan Commission he met with Linda Sloan and received the zoning code. Maybe it would require some work by the existing body to have some highlights and key points and items that need to be considered. He did not know if it had to go through Holland & Knight for the City to develop some basic understanding. He can bring it up to City Manager and the Mayor and to the Planning Dept. He met with Linda Sloan and they spent a couple of hours and walked out with a binder.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he got a call from Member Henry welcoming him to the Board and stated he assumed he was reading the zoning code.
Member Putzel stated you do not get a list of the variances and no one tells you what you are supposed to do.
Chair Chaplik stated he received a 30-page packet that summarized the zoning and taught a bit about side yards, front yards, etc. If he had not had a background in real estate it would have been daunting. Sitting down and walking through some interesting cases might help.
Member Fettner stated if you do not know the verbiage it can be confusing. It doesn’t do anyone any good if there is a four to five meeting learning curve.
Councilman Stolberg stated he would be happy to work with Karl and create a small document.
Member Henry stated he had started doing that and researched zoning boards of appeals handbooks across the country and there are some that have handbooks in the Midwest.
Councilman Stolberg wondered if Holland & Knight had something like this. He stated they talk about it at Council whether it is ZBA or the PDC. Nothing would suit all of us better than an educated panel.
Member Putzel stated Planner Burhop does an excellent job of explaining if it is an unusual circumstance and what the technical code is.
Councilman Stolberg stated he thought if someone is on the dais for the first time they should have a basic understanding of terminology, rules and standards.
Member Henry stated Planner Burhop is a tremendous asset to the Board.
Councilman Stolberg stated he would be happy to help out.
Planner Burhop stated as far as ZBA member on-boarding, he would take a look at the current orientation processes. He stated he could think of several resources and thought staff could provide this.
Member Putzel stated she thought it would be a good idea for someone to come to one of two of the meetings.
Chair Chaplik stated he would find the introductory package he had.
Member Putzel stated she had a binder she could revisit. The video she saw was about the closed meeting act. She asked about the training.
Vice Chair Cullather stated it was a little bit of zoning and meeting procedure.
Member Henry motioned to approve the FY 2020 ZBA Work Plan as submitted, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:05 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2246&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up