City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Dec. 19.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:32 PM Chair Chaplik called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Henry, Putzel
Members Absent: Bina, Fettner
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. December 5, 2019
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2019 meeting. Chair Chaplik stated he had viewed the video of the December 5, 2019 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 12-4-19
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
#19-11-VAR-026
Property: 475 Red Oak Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R4
Appellant: Udi Yeger
Address: 475 Red Oak Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, update, north elevation, west elevation, existing conditions, proposed site plan.
Mr. Yeger, Applicant, stated he hoped the Commission would approve the application.
Member Bay stated they had agreed the elevation was called for and they wanted to see an elevation and what it would look like. He stated he would approve the variance.
Member Putzel stated she was ready to approve the variance.
Member Henry agreed and thanked the applicant for coming back with more specific plans and thought it met the standards. He would approve the variance.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and thought the applicant had taken what he had heard regarding the rendering and he thought it met the standards. He would approve the variance.
Chair Chaplik stated he felt the same way and appreciated the elevations.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and an order approving the application as supplemented as submitted. Member Bay seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Bay motioned to adopt the order as written. Member Henry seconded.
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 5-0.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #19-11-VAR-027
Property: 1626 Ravine Terrace, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R4
Appellant: Bonnie Barsky
Address: 1626 Ravine Terrace, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop stated this application was considered by the ZBA last year and approved October 4, 2018, 5-0, motioned by Member Fettner and seconded by Member Bay. Members Bay, Fettner, Putzel, Cullather and Chaplik voted to approve. Nothing has changed in the application.
Planner Burhop stated nothing had changed from the previous application and made a presentation including project background, previous consideration, aerial photo, existing site plan, proposed site plan, floor plans, front elevation, east elevation, photos, additional notes and requested variation.
Chair Chaplik asked if this was a refresh from the exact same request from a year ago.
Planner Burhop stated it was the exact same. Approval orders are good one year from the date the Board adopts them and you have to get a building permit within that 12-month period.
Mr. David Meek, Attorney, stated Ms. Barsky was not able to pull everything together needed for a building permit and intends to go forward. She took the plans to every neighbor and they signed off and indicated they supported the plan and nothing has changed.
Member Putzel stated nothing has changed and she did not see a problem and would support the application.
Member Bay agreed and would support the application.
Member Henry stated he had watched the video and agreed it met the standards.
Member Henry stated that he had not voted on this application the first time but would support it after he reviewed the materials.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and would support the application.
Chair Chaplik agreed and felt it met the standards for approval with the same rationale they expressed a year ago and would support the application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Bay motioned to prepare an order approving the request, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel.
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 5-0.
2. #19-11-VAR-028
Property: 1870 Park Ave. W., Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District R3
Appellant: Kevin P. & Anna M. Fitzpatrick
Address: 1870 Park Ave. W., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, existing conditions, proposed site plan, site plan review, aerial view, photos, general block information, established building setback review, elevations, forestry and other comments.
Chair Chaplik asked what it would like if they threw out both outliers.
Planner Burhop stated if they took it away and measured to the home it would be 122.3’. Member Henry asked about the two properties to the left and what were the addresses. Planner Burhop stated 1884 and 1896.
Member Bay asked about trees.
Planner Burhop stated three were in the buildable area and the Forester had reviewed this. Chair Chaplik asked about the corrected order in the packet.
Planner Burhop stated it is before Board.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including it is a unique property, a through lot presents a challenge, relief is from the established front yard setback, neighborhoods were developed along a certain line, two challenges established front yard setback on both streets, houses on Holly are heavily wooded, looking at the rear along Holly, no uniform streetscape on Holly, Park Ave. has varying streetscape, trying to be sensitive to neighbors on either side, established front yard setback is two the zoning front yard setback for each block, dramatic differences in block, area encroaching on Holly is an open covered porch, sliver of house is encroaching.
Mr. Derek Rice, Architect, made a presentation including it is a 35,000 s.f. property, applicant is looking to build dream home, will retire in home, all livable spaces are on first floor, has vaulted great room and mezzanine space, neighbor is the west is at 43’ and neighbor to the east is at 77’, they are at 68’, tried to be sensitive to neighbors and keep appropriate to the property, mostly one-story, sited in east-west direction due to drainage issues, will re-grade east side of property, trying to make garage less massive, rotated garage in keeping with block, creating a line of trees on west side to provide privacy, requesting 68’ setback line, large overhang roofs, 2’ is roof overhang, not building mass, maximizing southern exposure, resolving drainage problems, ground slope for drainage, adding windows to cellar, looking for privacy, 68’ appropriate for being setback from Park Ave., neighbors are set back substantially to create privacy.
Member Henry asked how many square feet were proposed for the house.
Mr. Rice stated 5,300 s.f. including the garage. They are looking for a one-story. If they were confined to a smaller space they would have to go to a two-story and that would not work for the applicant because they are looking for a one-story with all livable space on the first floor. The proposed FAR is 6700 s.f. and the 5300 s.f. was the ground floor.
Member Henry asked if the yellow was the buildable area and if what is allowed is in yellow. There is a whole area they are not building on.
Mr. Rice stated that was that because of the turning radius for the garage.
Mr. Bernstein stated the trend in Highland Park is a three-car garage and they do not want the garage the facing street. The trend is a side load and it will be a more attractive elevation.
Member Henry asked where in the code the word trend is.
Mr. Bernstein stated it is anecdotal, it is not the code, it is the trend in construction. Member Henry asked if it was a design feature.
Mr. Bernstein stated there is construction all over Highland Park and it is not new. The reason why the code provides not more than 36 lineal feet of garage door frontage is that even though you can have a four-car garage, the City does not consider a garage attractive.
Member Bay asked if the relief requested closest to Park Ave. is entirely consisting of garage space.
Mr. Bernstein confirmed this. It is set back 68’ from the street. For the existing house is a two-story and they are replacing it with a one-story with a garage that is set back 25’ further. It is also less bulk along Park Ave.
Member Putzel asked if it is a three-car garage. Mr. Rice stated yes.
Member Putzel asked if it were a two-car would they need relief.
Mr. Rice stated currently they need 33’ of relief. To go to a two-car may be a deal breaker.
Member Putzel asked if it were a two-car would they need relief.
Mr. Rice stated it would reduce the size of the house.
Mr. Bernstein stated they would still need relief.
Mr. Rice stated if they eliminated this it would take care of the front and they would have a two-car garage. He was not sure they would be able to sell it down the road.
Mr. Bernstein stated it is almost an acre and the allowable FAR is almost 9000 s.f. It is a large lot and as the Board has recognized in the past, when you have large lots more than two-car garages are the norm. It goes to getting a reasonable return for the property if you do not have a third-car.
Chair Chaplik mentioned the size of the lot, and asked about alternate designs that would be within the permitted building envelope.
Mr. Rice stated they were looking at 122’ and it has been reduced to 109’ and how do they fit the house within the box. There would definitely have to be cutting or making it a two-story house. The whole purpose of the applicant buying the property is for a one- story house.
Mr. Bernstein stated they are looking to age in place with a single story. It is a large lot just under an acre with 25% less than the allowable FAR. It is significantly less than what could be built on the property. You sell a house based on s.f. but they are not looking to do this and are building it for themselves where they can age in place. The alternate would be to build a two-story which would be bigger house and taller up to 35’. They are creating less bulk and mass except for the great room. By trying to keep within the allowable footprint it would create a massive structure. The encroachments are fairly minor. The rear yard is a covered porch. It is much less bulk than what currently is there and part of managing setbacks is managing bulk.
Member Bay asked what is the part that is not outdoor space. Mr. Rice stated the guest bedrooms and dining room.
Mr. Bernstein stated the whole block is non-conforming. The purpose of the established front yard setback is to create uniformity. You have a block where every house is non- conforming except for one.
Chair Chaplik stated established building setback does encourage anything new to conform.
Mr. Bernstein stated there are some newer houses on the block. Mr. Rice stated this is the oldest house.
Mr. Bernstein stated every house is non-conforming.
Mr. Bernstein stated they have met with the neighbor and his objection is that he is concerned about his back yard. He has no issue with the established front yard setback along Park Ave. and he is encouraging a larger variance along Park Ave. to move it closer to Park Ave. He was wishing to move it closer to Park Ave. and away from Holly so it does not impact his back yard. They agreed to provide screening and he would be looking at a one-story. They could build a two-story 15’ from the front property line. The vaulted portion is in the middle at a 17’ peak. They have agreed to put in a line of evergreens along the lot line so they will be screened. They talked about the rear area and there is a tree that will help screen the back porch. The unofficial standard is that this is the minimum needed to achieve their goal. They were trying to limit the request along Park Ave. and thought that was the bigger ask. Holly operates as a rear yard for the entire block. They wanted to request the minimum to build which is 25% less than the allowable FAR and that is why they sited the house the way they did. Mr. Ornt wanted to push it closer to Park Ave. which is more of an ask. They are trying to get a reasonable return for a large piece of property with no rear yard, with two established front yard setbacks that are onerous, the hardship is this is a through lot with a lot of disparities in the setbacks and no uniformity, it is very unique, physical surroundings, not detrimental to the neighborhood, water problems on both properties, this will solve the water problems, there will be inlets with underground trenching, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, it is a large lot with a unique situation, are not trying to maximize the FAR, will continue to try to minimize the impact, will continue to work with the neighbors, house was built in 1947 and is dilapidated, are trying to improve the essential character of the neighborhood.
Mr. William Ornt, Resident, stated the setback was changed from when they built their house when the houses were all aligned, concerned that seven of ten trees are going down, their back yard is most important aspect, appreciate screening, changes are different than the plan he received.
Mr. Rice stated they ended up lowering the first floor 2’ which lowers the building height. This was done to have less rises in the height from the garage.
Mr. Ornt stated the original plans had a large wall on the patio for an outdoor kitchen and that was removed. They are set with what they are proposing and would like to see it moved farther north so it would impact them less.
Mr. Bernstein stated they had met with Mr. Ornt and are looking forward to a harmonious relationship.
Vice Chair Cullather mentioned the seven of ten trees being removed and asked if there was a landscaping plan that includes anything other than the arbor vitae.
Mr. Rice stated they had submitted for a tree removal permit and were awaiting to hear how many they need to replace and what kind. There are no heritage trees. There are some in poor condition and dead pines. They had an arborist assess the trees and some are small birch. They will do their best to maintain as many as they can.
Member Bay stated this was a tough one and a lot of effort has been made to try and do things that make sense regarding keeping the height and bulk down. He recognized there are additional restrictions for through lots and zoning setbacks. He did not know if the requirements that have to be met for the standards are any different for the established building setbacks than they are for the regular zoning code. He mentioned the outdoor seating area with three sides which is functionally a back yard seems reasonable. He understood the turning radius for the garage and he agreed the design should be considered as far as keeping the garage doors from the front of the house and it is aesthetically more pleasing. He was not sure it met the standards because there are other options and they could build as of right where they could get a reasonable return. He was having trouble trying to meet that standard.
Member Putzel agreed with Member Bay and while she did see it as a hardship that they have a through lot, it is a large lot with buildable area. She thought they had met some of the standards but was struggling with the reasonable return. She disagreed that a three-car garage was a standard and thought it was a luxury. They have said a one- or two-car garage was a standard in this climate and was struggling with three and thought that was pushing it. Their job as the Zoning Board is to make sure that applications adhere to zoning regulations and meet the standards. She could not approve the application at this point.
Member Henry agreed with Members Bay and Putzel. It is a large lot and a through lot creates its own set of issues. It is still a large buildable area and when you look at the standard for reasonable return and the hardship is due to unique circumstances and does not merely serve as a convenience to the petitioner he found this troubling. He understood there are several homes that are non-compliant. Their decisions are non- precedential and that is because as property turns over unless Council guides them otherwise, their job is to conform to the code unless the standards are met. Their decisions are non-precedential. Mr. Ornt is way up toward Park Ave. as opposed to this property. He proposed the petitioners move closer to Park Ave. He was not satisfied the petition met the standards they are required to apply.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed with the other members. It is large lot and there is a particular hardship with through lots. There is a large buildable area and they could still build a one-story that would meet their needs. The trend has not been they will approve a three-car garage for a variance. He had a problem with the Holly side as far as the variance and encroachment on that side. He understood the neighbor’s concerns. It sits further back than the neighbors immediately near them. It is more imposing from Holly. He knew a lot of effort had gone into the applicant’s presentations but thought they could do a little more tinkering and get the house they want and comply with Highland Park’s statues.
Chair Chaplik agreed with the elements of what everyone had said. He understood the desire for a three-car garage. He thought it would take less than an extravagant shoehorn to do it on this lot. His bigger concern was the Holly side. It is a pastoral area and the houses are very much set back. This house would add a lot of mass on Holly as proposed. The front on Park Ave. draws a line between the two houses on either side. He did not think the applicant had shown there is something that cannot be done on the envelope as currently permitted. He asked the applicant if he wanted a continuance or a vote tonight.
Mr. Bernstein stated they will try to see if there is something they can do and requested a continuance to January 16, 2020.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to continue to January 16, 2020. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there will be two new board members for the January 16th meeting.
Planner Burhop stated the steep slope will go to Council for final consideration in January.
Member Henry asked about their recommendation.
Planner Burhop stated the PDC concurred with SAG and the ZBA and recommended denial of the proposed changes related to steep slope.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
1. Approval of a Resolution Concerning the Release of Minutes of Certain Closed Meetings of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Planner Burhop stated there were closed session minutes for 575 Euclid Ct. Staff has been trying to find all closed minutes from the past and staff recommended maintaining keeping the confidentially of all closed session minutes. He thought there were two closed session minutes from 2011.
Chair Chaplik asked if they would have the opportunity to review these. Planner Burhop stated yes.
Chair Chaplik stated there may be some sensitivities that warrant continued discretion. It was their choice whether or not to maintain the privacy. He asked if it was twice a year.
Planner Burhop stated every six months.
Chair Chaplik stated he did not remember acting on anything prior to the most current matter.
Member Henry stated he did not think anyone on the Board is aware of any closed sessions other than the one a year ago. He motioned to retain the minutes that are currently noted as closed be kept closed until reviewed again in six months. Member Bay seconded. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Henry. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:07 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2319&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up