City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
I. Call to Order
At 7:30 p.m. Vice Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Henry
Members Absent: Bina, Chaplik, Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: Edheimer
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. Approval of Minutes
1. November 7, 2019
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2019 meeting. Member Henry so motioned with corrections on page 5 of the minutes (page 7 of the packet) to strike Member Henry’s statement – the last sentence under “Staff Report”, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, Vice Chair Cullather declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. Publication Date for New Business: 11-06-19
IV. Business from the Public: None
V. Old Business: None
VI. New Business:
1. #19-10-VAR-023
Property: 1066 Marion Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R5
Appellant: Robert Lebovitz
Address: 1066 Marion Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above including site location, project background, existing conditions, proposed site plan, site plan, site photos, neighbor review, floor area review, elevations, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay asked if there was a fence along the lot line where they want to locate the shed.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Henry asked whose fence it is.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know.
Member Bay asked about the bonus FAR and if they did this as an attached structure the FAR would not be an issue.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the house had been added onto at some point.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the additions put it over the FAR.
Planner Burhop stated they normally provide a neighborhood FAR review and the County Assessor redid their website. He had not had a chance to look at it until today. Planner Burhop stated that three of the smaller lots on the same block are over the FAR allowance.
Member Henry asked about the water in the back and if it went across the whole back yard.
Planner Burhop stated a very good deal of the back yard was under water. Planner Burhop stated he visited the property and put up the photos of the backyard on the presentation screens.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the shed were moved to quadrant 4 and moved straight back it could be as close the fence as they are planning.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct and if the shed were moved and still met the 3.5’ setback it would comply with the side yard.
Mr. Robert Lebovitz, Applicant, stated they have accumulated stuff and do not have a basement nor crawl space and are asking for relief because they need a place for the snow blower, lawn furniture, etc. They have talked to the neighbors and none are in opposition. There is a lot a tree cover and it is hard to see from one lot to the next in the summer. They picked this picked this location because they have trees and flower beds. The house was built in 1926 with an addition in 1966. They have kept it in good condition. They need a place to store items and he has replaced the lawn furniture several times. The fence belongs to the neighbors to west. They are getting water because the home to the south put in a swimming pool and there is zero grass or dirt from lot line to lot line and it is 100 percent cement. Water fills up all of section 3 and if he located it in section 4 there are five to six large trees. He would still encroach a little out of section 4 for the shed. He chose this shed because it had ample space for the furniture.
Member Bay asked if the reason he does not want it in section 4 it because of the trees.
Mr. Lebovitz stated they would have to remove some of the trees.
Member Bay asked if they could put it in front of the trees.
Mr. Lebovitz stated it would look poorly and would not be aesthetically attractive. Also there is an enormous amount of leaves that drop and he would have difficulty with them.
Member Fettner asked about the water that has taken over the back yard and if it is from an improvement down the street.
Mr. Lebovitz stated it is because the people behind him built a jumbo pool.
Member Fettner asked if there was typical drainage and if the yard was dry would he be able to place it in the quadrant allowed by right. He asked if the flooding is preventing him from doing this.
Mr. Lebovitz stated they have ducks stopping by and swimming.
Member Fettner asked if he had looking into installing catch basins or some type of drainage system that can drain the overflow.
Mr. Lebovitz stated Marion extension is one-lane road with no sidewalks or storm sewer on the road. There is no place to tie into.
Member Fettner stated if there were some improvements to the drainage and he had a dry yard and if they granted the variance it is permanent because of an issue that could be temporary.
Mr. Lebovitz stated the front of their house faces the golf course.
Councilman Stolberg asked to see the shed elevation. He asked why the door was oriented the way it is and why did he chose to orient the shed the way he did. He asked if it would solve most of the problems if he turned the shed 90º.
Mr. Lebovitz stated it is aesthetically more pleasing and it does not interfere with the back yard. He would still have to come before the ZBA because he is over on the s.f.
Planner Burhop stated any new building, attached or detached, would need floor area relief regardless.
Member Bay stated he thought it was a reasonable request and understood the reason for wanting to have a shed for extra storage. He did not think the applicant had addressed the standards for variation. He was not sure it met the standards and thought there were other options for where he could place it. Regarding the hardship and reasonable return standards, he did not think they met them and he could not vote in favor of the application.
Member Henry stated he agreed with Member Bay and convenience and aesthetics are not part of the standards although they take them into consideration. He was not troubled by the FAR and the house is huge. He thought there were other options that would not require a setback encroachment.
Member Fettner stated he was having issues for a few reasons. One has the petitioner tried to mitigate the variance request. He mentioned Councilman Stolberg’s comment about shifting it over and he could probably get it in there as of right. He agreed with the aesthetics, but did not know if it outweighed the rules of having to be 3.5’ from the neighbor’s yard. It is very close to the neighbor’s yard. He had no problem with the FAR. He could not approve it as requested.
Student Rep. Edheimer stated he thought there were valid reasons to have a shed to store furniture and as long as the neighbors were not opposed he would approve it.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed with the other members and had no problem with the FAR. He thought there were other alternates for location of the shed where he would be able to build by right. He thought the encroachment into the side yard as close as it is to the neighbor’s yard is significant. He did not believe the requirements for the variance had been met.
Vice Chair Cullather stated Mr. Lebovitz had heard the members’ comments and he had the opportunity to continue to later date or they could vote now.
Mr. Lebovitz stated because they really need this he would like a continuance. If the shed will fit in section 4 he would locate it there. The shed is more important than aesthetics and if it pleased the Board, he could move it farther back.
Member Henry stated it is not question of pleasing the Board. They are bound by the zoning code and standards. He was not trying to give legal advice and one of the things they look at when people come before the Board is what they are seeking to do and what are the alternates and the reasons why they are not viable. The members tonight are unconvinced that there is not a different way to do this. None of the members are opposed to the FAR, but are concerned with the encroachment.
Mr. Lebovitz stated he would be happy to meet the standards and would come back.
Member Henry motioned to continue to December 5, 2019, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, Vice Chair Cullather declared the motion carried unanimously.
2. #19-10-VAR-024
Property: 1443 Cavell Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R6
Appellant: North Shore Real Properties LLC
Address: 160 Lakeside Pl., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above including site location, project background, existing conditions, proposed site plan, buildable area review/site plan, photos, zoom-in/site plan, no plat of survey, aerial photo, elevations, neighborhood review and other comments.
Member Henry asked if the existing driveway encroaches.
Planner Burhop stated the driveway is not changing and they are proposing to extend it slightly, as indicated on the proposed site plan. Planner Burhop stated the driveway meets setbacks requirements and is allowed to encroach within the required side yard.
Member Henry asked if they were putting a garage at the end.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Member Henry asked if North Shore Real Properties is the owner.
Planner Burhop stated that is the ownership. The applicant did submit a hardship letter in time to be posted. It was circulated to the Board and was available hardcopy for anyone to review.
Ms. Sonia Cohen, Applicant, stated it is a small lot and she is trying to maintain some backyard for enjoyment. When they measured where the garage would be it left a condensed portion of the yard and they were trying not to take away back yard. If the variance is not granted she will have to go further into the yard and will have to go into the yard. She is trying to keep it beautiful. The landscaper told her the neighbor’s fence is on her yard. There is a metal post and she did not know if this was a mistake. As you are standing on the lot there are two rusted sheds and the garage will block them and they will not be an eyesore. She is not taking anything away from the neighbor and is making the lot better. It is a straight shot down the driveway and cars do not have to go around the back of the house and it makes for easier snow plowing.
Member Bay asked about the front door and if the leads to the driveway.
Ms. Cohen stated it is a side door.
Member Fettner stated he understood the need for a garage and the hardship. It is a tough lot and it is narrow. He thought the encroachment was a little more than he would like to see but it would be difficult to have a garage on the building pad without encroaching. He thought it met the standards and the reasonable return is one of the hardest ones. He was inclined to support the application.
Member Henry stated he was on the fence. He was struggling and would be more inclined if the garage were pushed back and was moved over than the way it is situated now. He thought it made more sense to push it back and the encroachment in the back would be more palatable than encroaching on the side and there is a lot of room in the back.
Member Bay stated he was less on the fence than Member Henry. He stated this would create more shoveling and more driveway space. It would be more inconvenient. He agreed with Member Fettner and thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed with the applicant and understood the difficulty of putting the garage on a narrow lot. It is not that big of an ask considering it is 60 s.f. out of 240 s.f. He thought the standards for a variance had been met and the hardship is the width of the lot compared to the size of the house. If you were to move it in the extra 3’ it would have to move back further in order to get cars in and out. This was not created by the applicant and will not affect the light or essential character of the neighborhood. He was leaning to approve the application.
Student Rep. Edheimer stated he agreed with everything said.
Vice Chair Cullather stated they have four members out of seven tonight and it requires a vote of four to pass a variance. They could either vote or continue with a different mix of members present.
Ms. Cohen stated she was comfortable with a vote. She wanted to put the garage in the back but you would have to shovel more and there would be more impervious surface. You would also have to walk farther and there is more a chance of falling when there is snow and ice. It serves multiple purposes to have it close to the house and it makes sense and there will be more of a yard.
Member Henry asked if she lived in the home.
Mr. Cohen stated it is currently rented and not for sale. She bought it and cleaned it up except for what they saw.
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare an approval order, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Henry, Fettner, Cullather
Nays: None
Vice Chair Cullather stated the motion passed 4-0.
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Henry, Fettner, Cullather
Nays: None
Vice Chair Cullather stated the motion passed 4-0.
VII. Staff Report: None
VIII. Miscellaneous:
Member Henry asked about the first application and the only page in packet was first page of the variance application. He did not see the page that dealt with the FAR.
Planner Burhop stated what would be page two of the application was incomplete on the application. There are different types of applicants with smaller projects that don’t require an architect or design professional and when there is something missing he would refer the Board to the notice. He stated he should have made some document to include that. Planner Burhop stated that if information is submitted that is incorrect or that may confuse the Board, he tends not to include it in the packet.
Member Henry stated Member Burhop always makes it easier for the Board.
IX. Adjournment:
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, Vice Chari Cullather declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:25 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2292&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up