City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 10.
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: Bina, Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: Bay
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. October 3, 2019
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2019 meeting. Member Putzel so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather. Member
Fettner abstained. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 9-25-19
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #19-08-VAR-020
Property: 880 Great Elm Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R5
Appellant: Alex & Hillary Behar
Address: 880 Great Elm Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above including site location, aerial location, project background, photos, existing conditions, proposed plans, lot analysis, proposed porch, elevations, City Forestry and other notes, relief requested and recommendation.
Chair Chaplik asked since the applicant owns Lot 7, do they receive any effective benefit from ownership with respect to the setback.
Planner Burhop stated only if they wanted to consolidate the two lots.
Chair Chaplik asked if they did consolidate how would the setback be altered and would the setback be zig zag.
Planner Burhop stated he was not sure how they would calculate it and would have to figure it out.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the lots were combined would a variance be required.
Planner Burhop stated probably not but he would have to figure out how to calculate it. Planner Burhop stated that any plat of subdivision to consolidate would also need relief, though would need relief from the Plan and Design Commission and City Council.
Mr. Mike Abraham, Architect, made a presentation including this is just a covered porch and not enclosed, the reason was to have a porch that looked more in scale with the house, will provide shelter for people at front door and the existing porch is not practical.
Mr. Alex Behar, Applicant, stated they are trying to get into house, trying to beautify house from 1911, adding porch to give more character and modernize, will not affect neighbors, cannot see much of porch from driveway, are a young family want to get their kid into school.
Member Bina asked if they had consulted with the neighbor and if so, what did he say.
Mr. Behar stated he called and wanted more information on what they would be doing and what materials they would be using. They are keeping within the structure and style of the home. They are adding the porch to protect from the rain and the neighbor was OK with it. They have the email verification of this.
Ms. Behar stated had the lot next to them not been part of the purchase, they would still have had to come to the ZBA for a variation. No matter what they want to do they would have had to come for a variation.
Chair Chaplik stated it might be a different analysis because if it were a single lot and even with the addition the closest house from the front door is approximately 70 ft. If they sold Lot 7 then they have a house right next to it. It might influence their decision.
The decision they make is not based on whether they think it is right or wrong, but they have to go with the standards showing hardship.
Ms. Behar stated when they bought the home they were not aware of the 40’ setback. The biggest think is protection from the weather. They want to get started so they can move in and have quite of bit of construction to complete. Consolidating the lots would be a financial burden and result in a time delay.
Chair Chaplik asked about a subdivision.
Planner Burhop stated he was asked if any relief would be required if subdivision was completed and his answer was correct but only partial. He should have added a subdivision application would require subdivision relief because it would create a lot that is not four-sided. Regardless they would have to seek a variation either way. If they consolidated they would need a variation to the subdivision code from the Plan and Design Commission and Council. They would need relief for the subdivision.
Member Putzel stated since this is an old home and they want the protection, is any of the work weather effective regarding water coming in.
Mr. Abraham stated the exposure to the door is significant. You cannot get a warranty on door unless it has a 5’ overhang. It is more of a practical matter and aesthetic solution.
Member Bina stated it is an interesting case because he is hung up on the hardship element and does this really constitute a hardship. The potential water damage gets them closer to where they need to be and he was inclined to support this. Adding to it is the uniqueness of the lot and it is a pre-existing condition and no matter what it is non- conforming and they really cannot doing anything without some relief. The other issue is the contiguous lot and if it were combined that would be a Plan Commission problem. He wanted to hear what the other members thought.
Member Fettner stated he supported it and thought there was a built in hardship with the uniqueness of the lot and it is a real funky plot. The hardship of the lot in trying to have some improvement on the house is a hardship. He thought it met the standards.
Member Putzel agreed and she did not know if they could get a reasonable return if they did not do this. The reason for the ZBA is to deal with unusual circumstances like this. If she knew the lots were going to be combined then she would definitely support it. It is an old house and they have seen cases like this before where people wanted a portico to protect from water damage and with that in mind, it made sense.
Member Henry stated he was vacillating and needed to ignore Lot 7 because it is not consolidated and regardless of the intention it could be sold at any time and they cannot take that into account in determining what the impact may be. One thing that allows him to support it is that a lot of the house is already non-conforming. He mentioned the safety and entering and exiting the house and protecting the design elements and thought that was covered in first standard.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he was vacillating. It is a unique lot with a beautiful house. He had trouble with the reasonable return and does it come back to a mere inconvenience. He did not think it was a necessity and it is a nice would like to have. This is not a heavily traveled street and the safety did not sway him. Member Putzel asked about the safety of people coming into the house and the protection of the door. He mentioned damage to the door. He was on the fence.
Chair Chaplik stated he was struggling as well. He mentioned what Member Henry said regarding Lot 7 and if there were a house there they would feel differently about the encroachment. If the owners do not wish to consolidate the lot they have to assume one day it might get sold off. You almost have to ignore the fact that they own that lot which was challenging for him. The addition is very close to the lot line. It is a highly unusual lot and a third of the house is already in front of it. He understood the reasonableness of the request and was leaning to support it.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order granting the variance as requested. Member Bina seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Bina, Henry, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion carried 6-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the order. Member Henry motioned to approve the draft order of approval as submitted. Member Bina seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Putzel, Bina, Henry, Fettner, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT: None
Planner Burhop stated there will not be a meeting October 17th, since there is no new or
old business to discuss.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Discussion of proposed changes to the Steep Slope Zone regulations of Article 19 of the Zoning Code, Chapter 150.
Planner Burhop stated the Board had discussed this and he will relay the minutes to the Plan and Design Commission. Any comments tonight will be in draft form and he will relay these in draft form to the Plan and Design Commission. He stated originally at direction from Council, staff was proposing to strike the role of Sustainability Advisory Group (SAG) in making recommendations on SSZ variations to the ZBA. That was the original proposal. After hearing feedback from both the SAG and ZBA, staff proposed the idea of having two members from SAG serve as ex-officio when this board has a SSZ variation. This would not be a formal recommendation from SAG, just from two members, and whenever there is a SSZ meeting and they can provide comments on that application and the impacts on the SSZ. The Plan and Design Commission wants to know the Board’s feedback on this specific ex-officio proposal and staff will transmit this to them.
Member Putzel asked if they could consider it a professional opinion.
Chair Chaplik stated it was coming with a third party engineering report. Member Henry stated the role is undefined in this proposal.
Chair Chaplik asked if SAG still was a group of the same number it used to be.
Planner Burhop stated the SAG has 10 members and their primary role is to advise Council on issues of sustainability and environment. For example the SAG looks at reducing green house gas emissions and lawn care chemical applications. The direction by Council has been to get the SAG out of the application business and let them do the policy business.
Chair Chaplik asked if they would still function as a group to review SSZ applications with the homeowners. They are not really presenting the report.
Planner Burhop stated right now SAG holds their own public meeting on SSZ applications and they motion and adopt findings of fact that are transmitted to the ZBA. That is proposed to be struck. The alternate is that two members from that group would come to this meeting and provide comments on a SSZ application.
Member Henry stated he understood that they have a public meeting and have technical expertise and weigh in on the impact.
Planner Burhop stated the City Engineering and Forestry reports will still be provided to the ZBA, as well as technical documents submitted by the applicants and required by the Code.
Member Henry stated they are being asked to weigh in as opposed to SAG having a hearing and deliberating it in a more comprehensive fashion. He was unequivocal in his opposition to this change. He took issue with the policy discussion and it takes away the voice of SAG that is important and the engineering department and other professional departments to weigh in on this issue and present it to us so we can deal with it. Someone has looked at this process, neighbors have had an opportunity to weigh in and there have been changes in the applications based on what this group has found. Now they are proposing to send two SAG people here with an engineer to talk to the Board with respect to their opinions without having to go through the process. He wanted to see the data that supports it will streamline the process and make it a better process for the City, residents and neighbors around these areas and he would challenge that. He would like some data that supports that proposition because he did not think it was true. It may cut short the SAG consideration but it is not going to shorten the Board’s deliberations and determinations and they are less capable to address SSZ issues that in prior times has already been determined for them. He thought is was ill advised and a disservice to City, the applicants and to the neighbors.
Chair Chaplik agreed with Member Henry and it reminded him of the packet of materials he was given part of which described how the City treated the ravines and steep slope areas with the utmost reverence and importance. They all know they are fragile ecosystems and if something is done it can alter erosion and drainage and affects on neighbors which is different that someone building a garage. The impact of these decisions can be very significant and the SAG members spend a lot of time trying to reach the right decision which allows the ZBA to reach a decision in a reasonable amount of time.
Member Fettner agreed completely with Member Henry and Chair Chaplik and thought it was more cumbersome than efficient and the packets from SAG are thorough and they have done the due diligence. There will be an extra burden on the ZBA when they already have cases that go long. They would also be adding two more individuals into the mix with the continuances that occur it seems like it will be more cumbersome than efficient.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and he did not see that the engineer would be required to be here. They have had cases in for heritage trees where it would be helpful if the Forester was present because they have questions and have to determine which side is correct with only one side being here. In the in SSZ instance if the third party engineer is not here they are just reading their report and the applicant brings in their own engineer which is makes it even more difficult. He thought the process SAG goes through in reviewing the data and determining the differences between various parties is a much more streamlined process than what is being considered here.
Member Bina stated he agreed with everything just said
Member Putzel stated she agreed with everything just said.
Planner Burhop stated the Plan and Design Commission will meet on this October 22nd and Board members can attend if they wish. He will send a reminder email on Monday. He asked to let him know in advance if they come because if there are three or more they will have to decide if they want to publish it as a meeting or not. He stated the reason it came back to the ZBA is the Plan and Design Commission heard the Board the first time and they want to follow up. The SAG group does not want these changes either. This will be relayed to the Plan and Design Commission and they may make made a recommendation on October 22nd or it may be continued again. He will continue to update the Board as to the progress.
Member Henry asked Planner Burhop if he was the staff liaison to the Plan and Design Commission.
Planner Burhop stated no, that is Senior Planner Andy Cross; however, Planner Burhop stated he does attend Plan and Design Commissions occasionally for various projects and applications and was the Planner who presented the Steep Slope Zone changes to the Commission since he is the most well-versed in these sections of Code.
Member Henry stated the Board has spoken with energetic unanimity and he hoped that was expressed as the basis for the objection to the change and the energy behind it.
Planner Burhop stated he will send an email on Monday for the Plan and Design Commission meeting on October 22nd at 7:30 PM.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:18 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2276&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up