City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met March 16.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:36 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: Hendrick
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Later
Student Rep.: Macknin
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. December 19, 2019
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2019
Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Henry. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 12-31-19
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS:
1. #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, original site plan, revised site plan, application revisions, revised site plan review, original site plan review, existing conditions, photos, revised elevations, new landscaping plan, established building setback review, forestry and other comments.
Chair Chaplik asked about the proposed front setback relative to the house to the west. Planner Burhop stated the house to the west is 42.43’ from the north property line. Vice Chair Cullather asked if they had heard from anyone in the intervening weeks. Planner Burhop stated Mr. Ornt had contacted him.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, made a presentation including they had heard the comments of the Board, requested relief, zoning data, no encroachment onto Holly, three to two-car garage, made house smaller, sited house to match up with two immediate neighbors and meets requirements on Holly.
Member Bay asked about the building envelope.
Mr. Bernstein stated he would address this after Mr. Rice spoke.
Mr. Derek Rice, Architect, made a presentation including asking for 63’ setback, current house is 42.5’ off Park Ave., pushing house 20’ farther back, complying with Holly, encroaching 17.5 on Park Ave, have created a much smaller house, there are a lot of shrubs and they are adding more screening to create privacy, eight new evergreens along west property line, north elevation has not changed, is below FAR limits, west elevation, shrunk from two-car to three-car garage and rear elevation.
Member Bay asked how much smaller the house was.
Mr. Rice stated they shrunk it as much as possible.
Mr. Bernstein stated the proposed FAR is 6,425 S.F. and the last one was 6,720 s.f., allowable FAR is 9,000 s.f., a lot of the FAR is in the middle portion of the building because it is an atrium with an elevated ceiling, actual footprint is less than 9,400 s.f., owners wanted a ranch to age in place, wanted to locate a property that can support a building of that size, document generated by City staff indicates the different yards, there was a mistake and it did not note it was a through lot and subject to two front yards, when they bought the property they thought building it was the building envelope and more than needed for a single-story ranch house, they were relying upon representations from the City and purchased the property, retained an architect and civil engineer, there are water, grading and topography issues, trying to manage the wet area, bought the house and hired architect and engineer, when submitting for permits it was discovered the City determined the property was a through lot and in order to build they have to seek relief, they bought property thinking this was the building pad, had to shrink house and no longer have three-car garage, want to age in place. Regarding the four comments – Holly side has been addressed they are no longer seeking variance along Holly, concerns about three-car garage which has been addressed by reducing to two-car, large buildable area and there are certain areas in the northeast corner that are not conducive to building because of drainage issue, they met with Mr. Ornt and he wanted the house pushed forward due to impact on his rear yard and they moved house, he is now in support of the application. They cannot get a reasonable return without receiving the variance, hardship is a through lot with onerous front yard setbacks, drainage issue needs to be addressed and requires house to be sited in a certain location, reduced FAR by 5%, the are excited to move to Highland Park and had made a compelling case for the variance.
Member Putzel asked if the light brown area was a patio. She asked if they had considered pushing the home farther away from Park Ave. so it would fit into the buildable area.
Mr. Rice stated it is an outdoor covered patio and does need to comply with the setbacks and if they brought the house farther south it would be out of compliance.
Mr. Bernstein stated that was the only encroachment on Holly.
Mr. William Ornt, Resident, stated he appreciated the changes made and was in support of the new plans.
Member Bay stated he thought this makes sense and might help him get to the point where he can support this. He thought if they applied all the standards he was not certain it met every one of them. In viewing the totality of the situation and the changes made he would support the variance.
Member Putzel stated she appreciated the re-design and thought most of the standards had been met. She was struggling with the reasonable return and wanted to hear the other members’ thoughts.
Member Henry stated the application presents a dilemma and they are trying to apply the standards balancing the owner’s rights to do what they want. Because it is a through lot it has large setbacks on both sides. They have to balance this with City code. The situation is unique and it is troubling that the City provided wrong information when the property was purchased. They have had to face this before and they are not here to cover the City. If you buy a property with the understanding you can do certain things and then it turns out not to be the case, does that create a hardship. He was struggling with this concept and was a little on the fence. He was not trying to save the City and one would think you can rely on information from the City when you go to them ahead of time. He did not know if that created a hardship. He was inclined to support the application for that reason and others. The applicant heard what the Board said and had made significant changes to the house. He was not concerned with Holly and most of the houses front on Park Ave. The applicant made changes and the architect had to do some out of the box thinking, the volume of the house has been reduced and does not approach the FAR which is all significant. He would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather thanked the applicant for listening and taking into consideration what they heard. By going to the City they attempted to do their due diligence but it did not find the double setback. They met with the City and purchased the lot in good faith thinking they would be able to build they house they wanted. He was concerned about the setback on Holly and was glad to see they took that into consideration. It was not a little encroachment. The willingness to put in the row of evergreens for privacy addresses some of the concerns. They brought the house closer to Park Ave. and they have a smaller garage than requested. He thought in order to get a reasonable return they have met the requirements in order to have a house that is appropriate to the size of the property. He thought the investment they will be making with the variation will help them achieve their goal. The remaining area of the lot is the low area with water. He would support the variation.
Chair Chaplik stated all the members touched on matters he was concerned about and thought the proposal meets the standards and he would support the variance. The streetscape will be improved by the siting of the home.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned to have staff draft findings of fact approving the variation as revised including with condition of approval, Member Bay seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Henry motioned that the variance approval order submitted in draft with condition be approved, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
VI. NEW BUSINESS: None
VII. STAFF REPORT: None
Member Henry asked if the steep slope issue had come before Council.
Planner Burhop stated it is still pending and could heard January 27th or the first meeting in February.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the City was still looking for a seventh member for the Board.
Ms. Holleman stated they were still looking. Member Bay asked if someone had withdrawn. Ms. Holleman stated she did not know.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
Planner Burhop stated there is one new item for the February 6th meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:15 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2327&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up