City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met May 7.
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: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Later
Student Rep.: Edheimer
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 6, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2020 meeting. Member Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick. Members Zaransky and Henry abstained because they were not present at that meeting.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Abstain: Zaransky, Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 4-22-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None.
Planner Burhop checked his email and no emails were present. Planner Burhop asked if anyone on the Zoom could raise their hand if they wishes to speak and no one did. Planner Burhop stated that he had received no emails or voicemails to be read during this time.
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Member Henry mentioned the policy to read emails at the end of the meeting and thought it was counterproductive. They vote on the items as they are heard and he thought they need to address any emails while hearing the item. Otherwise it is moot because they will have voted on it.
Chair Chaplik agreed and stated that before a vote is taken Planner Burhop could check his emails and see if there is something in his inbox.
Planner Burhop stated he would do so.
#20-03-V AR-002
Property: 41 Ridge Road, Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District R6
Appellant: Lenuta Ungureanu & George Birlan
Address: 41 Ridge Road, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, previous relief, 2017 site plan, proposed site plan, site plan, elevation plan comparison, aerial view, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Member Henry asked if there is wall that already encroaches into the rear yard and nothing behind it.
Planner Burhop stated that was correct. They are proposing to get closer and are proposing to fill in the space already behind the wall approved in 2017.
Member Hendrick asked if the addition had been built yet.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant will respond to this.
Chair Chaplik asked if the original relief still valid.
Planner Burhop stated they submitted the building permit in time and you can have multiple extensions on the permit.
Chair Chaplik stated they filed this application seeking to grant additional relief.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct and the original 2017 order is still valid.
Mr. George Birlan, Applicant, stated his architect was here to answer any questions.
Ms. Oana Herghelegiu, Architect, stated after talking to the contractor, the way the addition was first proposed would cause snow issues as it could get inside the bay area and it would be a maintenance problem. He suggested they should infill the wall. It is easier to add the square footage inside the house instead of losing it and have the overhang encroach even more into the required setback.
Chair Chaplik asked if she had any thoughts on how this meets the requirements for the variance.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated they did not consider it to be an issue regarding the safety and welfare of the community, the neighbors will not see it, they are not making more profit and it is the most convenient option.
Member Bay stated he was confused about the letter of situation and in the first paragraph it talks about the hardship and says that the proposed variation is based on hardship for future maintenance. He assumed there is no current hardship. He asked if the hardship is only going to exist in the future is that a result of the construction they have already been approved to do pursuant to the last approved variation.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated mainly the permit was issued for plans as presented. The setback from the exterior wall will create a bay where snow can accumulate and cause wet conditions. The owners are looking to create a flat surface in that area to avoid this problem. The options would be to get rid of the architectural wall or to move forward with the addition.
Member Bay stated the letter says this is being applied for to avoid a future hardship. There is not a current hardship.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated yes because it is not built yet and the permit application was issued the way it was.
Chair Chaplik asked if the owners started construction and the contractor said not to do it this way and they would have a problem and suggested a way to avoid it.
Ms. Herghelegiu confirmed this.
Member Hendrick stated it was created by them during the initial application process. He asked if this could have been foreseen when the plans were initially drawn up.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated they did not talk about it because they had a heating system inside the addition and it was not an option from a construction perspective. The contractor was involved after the permit was issued and this was his conclusion. This was not a design build project and they did not have a construction manager involved.
Vice Chair Cullather stated when looking at the project information application, he wanted to confirm the existing floor area has not been constructed.
Planner Burhop stated the total proposed floor area is the floor area which will include the garage and addition which includes the request this evening.
Vice Chair Cullather asked about the issue raised by the contractor, i.e., the accumulation of snow caused by the wall extension, and if they had considered removing the wall extension.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated they had considered it but the way house is the room has two patio areas one on side and the other on the kitchen. They are looking to have an extension so they can create a covered area on the north side of the kitchen.
Planner Burhop showed the proposed floor plan.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated on the north and south sides of the kitchen there would be glass doors so people can communicate with the kitchen and they need that space for a covered area for the grill. When they talked about getting rid of the wall that covered area would not be there. As it is now they can open the door and work on the grill. Otherwise they would lose the circulation area and it would not be covered.
Ms. Holleman stated they are talking about 11 s.f. and it is not adding bulk to the project. It is a small section.
Planner Burhop confirm the relief request is a shade over 11 s.f.
Councilwoman Holleman stated the hardship runs with this triangular lot and they have been trying to develop this for years.
Member Bay stated he was not part of the Board for the original variation. He did not know what the original hardship was to allow for the original variation. He had heard something was going to happen as a result of something they are going to do.
Councilwoman Holleman stated the triangular lot is hardship which is impossible to build and it runs with the land.
Member Bay stated the alleged hardship will only occur with the accumulation of snow which will occur after construction. He thought they were creating the hardship they are taking about.
Member Hendrick agreed and thought they are being asked to review this variation in a vacuum. He was not present for the first one and he did not see the hardship.
Chair Chaplik stated it is a very difficult triangular lot and they area adding a phone booth’s worth of square footage based on a design mistake. This is a correcting a slight error in the original application.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he remembered this from before and the triangular lot had to do with the variance granted in 2017. The applicant is now asking for an additional 11 s.f. which is not that big of an issue. If it had been in the original design he thought they would have approved it.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if there had been any phone calls. Planner Burhop stated there had been no calls or emails.
Ms. Herghelegiu stated they had not received any letters.
Member Zaransky stated if the proposal was approved in 2017 and Vice Chair Cullather stated if it was presented with the extra square footage it would have been approved. He thought it was almost a correction to a plan and he was in favor of the relief.
Member Hendrick stated there were three members not on the Board initially. He felt the hardship was pending on what was approved in 2017. He though the applicant should have resubmitted completely. He did not think there was a deminimus exception and while he agreed that the relief is small, he was not in favor of the application.
Member Bay stated it should be no brainer and there was no allegation of a hardship now. He asked the question and the architect stated there was not. It would be created after construction. He did want to be a constructionist of the standards and based on what he had in front of him he did see an existing hardship. If they build this is it will create a hardship and the hardship cannot be created by the owner. He thought it should have been reasserted as to what the overall hardship was in the first place. He would not support the application.
Member Putzel stated she agreed with Member Zaransky and thought the situation makes it a little difficult for the applicant to explain. She recalled the hardship is the shape of the lot. If they had presented it with the small area filled in she thought they would have approved it. She thought it met all other standards. They would not be able to build the kitchen and then they are recreating entire plan. She saw it as an oversight and did not think it required coming back to the Board and present everything all over again. She understood the other members were not present, but it was approved and this would cause water damage requiring them to come back again. She would support the application.
Member Henry stated he did not recall the application and agreed with Member Putzel. He thought it would be counterproductive and waste of time to require the applicant to come back and re-litigate a two year old application as well as this one. It is misguided for the Board to say that because a plan presented originally had a flaw that no one saw that creates a safety and health problem and have them build it and then come back and say now they have a problem is misguided. It is below the FAR and they have not heard from any of the neighbors. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Chair Chaplik stated he did not hear Member Henry.
Member Henry stated he agreed with Member Putzel.
Vice Chair Cullather stated if they had considered the original application in 2017 with the additional square footage, it would have been approved. It is a unique lot that presents hardships. The applicant stated they had looked at different options and thought it was a correction to avoid a hardship created by themselves and they are doing it at the right point. He would support the request.
Chair Chaplik stated he supported this originally and they would have approved it. He thought it met the standards for a variance and would support it.
Chair Chaplik asked Planner Burhop if there were any emails.
Planner Burhop stated there were none. He stated notices went to applicants and referred to the virtual meeting and website. They encourage the public to participate by Zoom or call in. The email is kind of an emergency where someone cannot call in or use Zoom. They are encouraging the public to participate in the virtual meetings.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and an order approving the application. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: Hendrick, Bay
The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-2.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to approve the order as drafted. Seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed 7-0.
2. #20-05-V AR-004
Property: 726 Detamble Avenue, Highland Park, IL 60035 Zoning District R6
Appellant: Joseph Leslie
Address: 726 Detamble Avenue, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, existing fence, proposed site plan, photos, neighboring fence photos, other comments and requested relief.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the two lots with highlighted fences are through lots.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Vice Chair Cullather stated they have streets on three side of the lots.
Planner Burhop stated he looked up and down the street and some fences comply and some do not.
Member Zaransky asked if they were looking for approval for fence height of 6’. Planner Burhop stated the relief is for both replacement and extension.
Chair Chaplik asked if this home is non-conforming regarding the front setback. Planner Burhop stated it conforms to the 25’ setback on both sides.
Mr. Joseph Leslie, Applicant, stated there is an existing 6’ fence, exposed nature of area, is a safety issue, has two young daughters, wants to utilize area, 6’ is three-fold – a safety issue, children could scale 4’ fence, second is aesthetics, third is quality of fence, children are awaken by traffic and wants to mitigate sound.
Ms. Katie Basham, Contractor, stated with the noise block there will be a 75% reduction in noise, is aesthetically pleasing and is gold cedar, will hold value, visual aesthetic, benefits other homes on same street, provides barrier that prevents sound waves to pass through, barrier for cars to come into yard and will provide protection.
Chair Chaplik asked if the fence would be behind the trees. Ms. Basham stated yes in the same location.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the ZBA does not get into aesthetics and they are just approving the fence. Regarding the material, they are taking the applicant on his word.
Planner Burhop stated the ZBA does not perform design review. The Board is allowed to condition approval if they find a nexus between the condition and the standards of approval.
Chair Chaplik stated compatibility with the neighborhood effectively allows the Board to consider what the fence will look like.
Member Henry stated if you look at standard for fence variations they could condition the approval on them building it pursuant to the plan presented as well as it be maintained behind the tree line. He thought they had the ability to do either of these things or both. He thought this might be desirable.
Member Zaransky stated they have a 6’ fence now and want to improve it with something better. He agreed with the extension and the lot is tight. There is no significant change to Green Bay Rd. and it will be behind the vegetation. He would support the application.
Member Hendrick stated he was in favor and stated he did not feel they had to condition it. The houses on the other side could benefit from the extension.
Member Bay agreed it met the standards and agreed with Commissioner Hendrick that they should leave the owner a wiggle room to do what they want design wise. He would approve the application unconditionally.
Member Putzel stated it met the standards and is consistent with the neighborhood. She was undecided about conditions. She thought it was an easy approval.
Member Henry stated it met standards and was in favor of conditioning the order on them building the fence as they have proposed. In the packet there are two examples of fences, the Sherwood which is what they are proposing, and the Allegheny which is brick which he would not approve. He would condition the order on them building the fence as presented in the application.
Vice Chair Cullather did not think it met the standards and thought the changed the character of the street because there are only two lots on the east side of Green Bay Rd. with 6’ fences. The extension of the fence covers the front of the house with a 6’ wall blocking off the windows and door from the street. He thought it created a different look. The owner could put up a chain link which would be horrendous. He thought it would have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood and little kids are not a reason to build a fence. He did not think the children were a hardship. He lives on Green Bay Rd. and understands the noise. You get what you buy and it is not a hardship to justify building a 6’ sound barrier fence.
Member Henry stated hardship is not a standard for a fence.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he understood and was just using the word.
Chair Chaplik stated they are loath to grant a tall front yard fence. He lives near the home and understands the situation. He believed the Sherwood fence met the standards and would not approve the Allegheny. He would support the application and wanted to see more clarification that it is the Sherwood.
Member Hendrick stated conditioning makes sense.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and an order approving with the condition that proposal contract dated February 1, 2020 calls for the Sherwood style fence. Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Chaplik Nays: Cullather
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-1.
Planner Burhop asked the Board to consider that if they wanted to adopt the order in the packet with specific amendment that the final fence be the Sherwood Style, he would suggest the amendment be specific enough so the applicant would not have to come back.
Chair Chaplik agreed with Planner Burhop.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the order with modification. Member Bay motioned to approve the order as drafted including the modification stated by Planner Burhop. Seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Chaplik, Cullather
Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 7-0.
3. #20-05-V AR-005
Property: 154 Ravine Drive, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone Appellant: Russell Chad Mollen & Elizabeth Ann Mollen
Address: 154 Ravine Drive, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, previous relief, proposed site plan, site plan, elevation plan comparison, aerial view, photos, established building setbacks, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay asked if it was fair to say they are referring to this as a request for encroachment and the structure below already encroaches. This is not increasing the footprint or any further encroachment.
Planner Burhop stated it is new bulk and massing within a setback. It is within the same footprint.
Member Bay asked if this was above the existing FAR. Planner Burhop stated it is below the FAR.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated the applicant is a multi-generational family and moved back to Highland Park, unique property that is completely non-conforming as to the front yard setback and side yard, home is 110 years old, not a landmark but considered historical, architect is Joseph Silsby, first American-educated architect in the nation, home is not designed for a large family, not seeking to extend footprint, it is vertical encroachment, never used porch, making it part of master bedroom suite, is not visible from street and there is no neighborhood objection.
Mr. Scott Grobarek, Architect, stated they have one walk-in closet in the master suite which is small and there is not a lot of room, wants decent sized closet for size of home, does not want to alter windows or front of house, not looking to create additional space not visible from street and minimal visibility from neighbors.
Mr. Bernstein stated the standards allow for a reasonable return, home is 110 years old and needs continual upkeep, it is a large lot and a large home could be built on property, City has no mechanism to preserve historical homes, they are trying to create value and provide a reasonable return. The hardship is evident and the house is non-conforming and already encroaches, this was not caused by the owner, will not be visible from the street and meets the standards.
Chair Chaplik asked how close the home to the east is from their home to the wall of the applicant.
Mr. Bernstein stated there is a large side yard.
Planner Burhop stated the GIS measurement is approximately 46’.
Mr. Bernstein stated they met with the neighbor and he had no objection. There is an extended tree line of evergreens and it will not be visible.
Member Zaransky stated he felt the petitioner meets the standards and there is decent screening between the homes. He thought the neighbor would be less disturbed by a closed in closet as opposed to an exterior patio. They are building vertically within the existing footprint and he would support the application.
Member Hendrick agreed, and it is a unique property and thought the packet was very thorough.
Member Bay stated he agreed and thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Member Putzel stated the house is non-confirming and an unusual shape in a large lot. She thought it met the standards.
Member Henry stated he did not think it met the standards and did not see the hardship or the inability to get a reasonable return. It is a unique property and everything is non – conforming. Regarding the closet, they have a 7.5’ x 15’ closet which is bigger than a lot of peoples’ bedrooms. He did think it met the standards and would not support it.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he was having trouble finding the reasonable return and it is an unusual property. They want to insure historical houses are preserved and lived in. He had questions about the standards and the ability for a reasonable return only if this variation is approved. He did not see as being met in this case. It is an unusual piece of property but he did not see the hardship.
Chair Chaplik stated they are bound by strict standards and striving to preserve historic homes are not in the standards. He saw it as a very reasonable request and was challenged by how it meets the standards. He was empathetic to the applicant and was challenged as to how it meets standards.
Member Bay asked about the standard of reasonable return and was it to be viewed as a reasonable return on money already invested or money that is going to be invested.
Chair Chaplik asked Member Henry to address this. Councilwoman Holleman stated they should defer to staff on this.
Planner Burhop stated the standard reads “the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return, if permitted to be used only under conditions allowed by the regulations of the zooming district, this however does not mean that granting the variation is based solely on whether the owner can make money from the property.” The ZBA is nominated by the Mayor and appointed by City Council and to an extent they represent the community and are able to interpret the standards. It is up to their collective judgment and will to determine what that standard means.
Member Henry stated that is what they serve on the Board to do.
Member Bay stated there is a certain amount of ambiguity the way the standard is written and it needs clarification. If it comes from the ZBA it will be left to each individual vote to how it is going to be clarified.
Councilwoman Holleman stated in this case they are the body charged with interpreting it. That is their charge. They have put forth a reasonable argument stating why they need that standard. They can decide it on its merit.
Mr. Bernstein stated this was addressed in the letter and he will try to expand on it. The provision in the standard is that if the property cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions set forth in the zoning code. They have a non-conforming house and it should be able to yield a reasonable return. Highland Park repealed a portion of the Historical Preservation Act which provided for landmarking with consent. That allowed the City the ability to preserve historical homes. The City does not have that right any more. They rely on homeowners to improve existing historical homes in order to provide a more reasonable return. The alternative is that they have a very large lot and not even close to the FAR. If the ZBA takes the position that this is not a reasonable return, the alternative is that they could a much yield higher return by tearing it down and building a house that is 30-40% larger than this home. The highest and best use for this property is tearing it down and building a McMansion. Without granting this variance and allowing the preservation of this historic home, the property cannot yield a reasonable return. This house needs continual updating and there have been two zoning variances over the past 40 years that have been granted. Upgrading the existing historical home is the only way you can possibly get a reasonable return. Otherwise someone will say in order to get a reasonable return they need to tear it down and build an 11,000 s.f. house.
Councilwoman Holleman stated she wanted to address the historic issue because it was a contentious issue on the Council side. The idea was they do not want to lose historic homes and they want people to invest in them. There are several McMansions on this street. This is one of the original early homes. The relief is minor in order to make this home livable. It is enabling a family to stay in the home and modernize vs. selling it and it tearing down. They are trying to modernize an ancient house and they need to respect it and it is a financial sacrifice.
Chair Chaplik stated Council might want to consider amending our standards to give consideration to historic preservation.
Member Hendrick stated once you get past the reasonable return he thought all the other standards were met. Putting in money and effort seems to be minimal (unintelligible).
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Bay motioned to direct staff to prepare an order consistent with the findings of facts discussed in granting the variation. Vice Chair Cullather seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-1.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the approval order. Member Bay motioned to adopt the approval order as written and to amend it to include the specific correction as set forth by Planner Burhop as to setback. Seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
Mr. Bernstein thanked the Board for their consideration.
4. #20-05-V AR-006
Property: 668 Judson Avenue, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R6
Appellant: Brett Abrams
Address: 668 Judson Avenue, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, property history, proposed site plan, floor area review, elevation plans, aerial view, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay asked if there was a way to know how many other homes in the area are at or exceed the FAR. He asked how this home would compare to others if it were granted.
Planner Burhop stated he looked at the County Assessor site and was given floor area numbers and nothing referred to garages. He would be giving floor area numbers that are less than they are and doesn’t give the Board incorrect information.
Member Bay sked if R6 is seen as being less restrictive or more restrictive as compared to some of the other residential designations.
Planner Burhop stated floor area is not dependent on zoning district, it is dependent on lot size. In terms of setbacks, the R6 is less restrictive and they have smaller setbacks.
Councilwoman Holleman stated these are narrow mostly older houses and you would be hard pressed to find one that has not been added on to. The proposal would be entirely within the character of the neighborhood to have an addition. In the back is a Com Ed station. The neighbors have not objected.
Mr. Brett Abrams, Applicant, made a presentation including introduction to family, have lived in Highland Park since 2011, own rental property in Highland park, requirement and hardship, he works from home 100% of time, wife works from home, home office is required, dedicated spaces needed, want to maintain integrity of house, same architect and builder who built home in 2011.
Mr. Robert Kirk, Architect, made a presentation including they looked at different design alternates, tried to keep it as small as possible, inside space is 13’ x 13’, same roof and brick, worked with next door neighbor, acts as buffer between neighbor and deck, hardship was not self-imposed, has limited impact on visibility from street, solution has right feel and possibilities.
Member Putzel asked for the applicant or architect to expand on the hardship. She asked if they could reflect specifically on the property and type of variance they are requesting and explain how this is applicable to the hardship.
Mr. Abrams stated he has been forced to work from home three-four days a week, his wife’s business has expanded and they are on top of each other, they need more space to maintain all the things going on in the house.
Chair Chaplik asked if there was anything about the property specifically that raises the hardship. The concept of individual hardship is not the type of hardship the standards refer to because this right runs with the land forever. The next owner might not work from home. The hardship standard they are required to deal with is a hardship relating to a unique set of circumstances relating to this particular property that gives rise to a hardship.
Mr. Kirk stated he was referring to Item 3 in the list of criteria. It has to do with the unique lot size in R6 and there will be little impact on the neighbors. The hardship it that the lot is a certain size that allows a certain FAR. This is a unique condition for this family and the solution is the right one for this family. The site is not physically large enough to get the FAR that is required in the world we live in today.
Councilwoman Holleman stated when the house was first built it was built under one set of standards and changed so it is a non-conforming property.
Planner Burhop stated the house complied when it was built in 2002-03 and the City changed the FAR requirements in 2004. The requirements are stricter so it is now non- conforming.
Councilwoman Holleman stated they have been put into a situation where they have a non-conforming property through no fault of their own. They are doing this because they want to stay in the neighborhood. The alternate is to move out but they are committed to the neighborhood. She urged the Board to support a young family trying to deal with a situation which was not what the original building was. This would have been a minor request had it been under the original standard.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the FAR is 40% and under the original construction they were at 38%.
Planner Burhop stated the requirement when it was constructed was a fixed 40% and built to 38.8%. They are now requesting 40.81%.
Chair Chaplik stated giving them benefit of the old rules they would be allowed 50 sq. ft. if they wanted to use the bonus FAR.
Member Henry stated either way they are in excess of it and cannot rebuild anything without exceeding the FAR.
Planner Burhop stated they would have been allowed 3,700 s.f. when built in 2002 and went to 3,588 s.f. Under the old rules this 187 s.f. addition would be about 75 sq. ft. too much.
Member Henry asked Mr. Kirk if consideration was given to reconfiguring house to provide for an office. If so, why is it not feasible.
Mr. Kirk stated they had looked at everything from the basement to space above the garage. The house is square and the first and second floors are occupied with a kitchen, living spaces and a small family room. The wanted it to be a win-win not just for the layout, but they wanted it to be separated. They found out only one neighbor was impacted and he was positive about the project. One of their main bedrooms faces the deck and they prefer to have it separated with some kind of structure. They also feel architecturally the addition breaks up the back façade. This is the only neighbor that is impacted by this and they wanted to make sure it will have minimal amount of impact on anyone and it does. With the façade in the rear being blank, this finalizes the architecture and they are using the same materials. It is a positive in many ways.
Chair Chaplik asked Planner Burhop if he had received any emails or other commentary.
Planner Burhop stated he had not.
Member Zaransky stated they did a great job on the presentation and it was very helpful. He thought timing is everything and they have seen more than ever a need to work from home. It is meaningful that the neighbor is positive and he was in favor of the variance.
Member Hendrick stated he did not believe the hardship had been met. He thought the existing floor area is generous and thought having over 3,000 s.f. and then wanting to add on did not meet the hardship.
Member Bay stated he was on the fence and clearly the standard most in question is the hardship. He thought that perhaps under a strict interpretation of the standard it may not be met. Member Zaransky stated we live in a different world and to put the applicant in a position where they either have to work and live in an uncomfortable situation or move would be the hardship and he would support the variance.
Member Putzel stated she appreciated their plight and they are all facing these issues in working from home and kids doing e-learning and everyone is in each other’s space. She appreciated that the neighbor supported it and the care and thought given to the aesthetics. She was struggling in light with what Councilwoman Holleman said, that they want them to stay because that is not their defined job. Their job is to note whether the application meets the standards and she did not think they met the standards.
Member Henry stated Member Putzel’s analysis was right, but he did not agree with her conclusion. He recalled when the FAR was changed and it was changed when the City was seeking to stop tear downs and building from lot line to lot line. This is not that situation. The hardship is they cannot build anything without a variance. They are not encroaching on front or side yard setbacks or building line setbacks. They are not building something that towers over the neighbors. This goes to Member Bay’s question as to how to interpret the standards. It evolves over time. This was why he asked Mr. Kirk whether they considered putting the office in the house itself. He stated they did and none of them worked. He thought this was a situation that meets the standards and this is why the Board was established to be able to provide relief to a homeowner seeking relief from the FAR. The Board takes requests to exceed the FAR as something special. He thought it the meets the standards and he would approve the application.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed with Member Henry and thought the purpose of the Board was to deal with difficult issues. He liked the part of the presentation that considered other options. It is a sizeable house for a family of five. He liked that they talked to the neighbor. He wished that in the letter a true hardship had been explained. He thought a shared office space could be the resolution. He did not want people to think they could use Covid as a reason for a variance. They had looked at other options. The house was built almost to maximum capacity for this lot. He felt the criteria had been met and would support the request.
Chair Chaplik stated they had attended training with Corporate Counsel and thought this is a personal hardship not relating to the property. He was concerned that given their direction does everyone get to exceed the FAR to build a home office. As much as he would like to grant that where it seems reasonable and no one is impacted, he was challenged given the rules they have to follow. He felt the plight of the applicant and other citizens working from home. Maybe Council would like to amend the rules so they can consider personal hardships. It is reasonable and not bothersome, but he was having trouble with it meeting standards.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned that staff prepare findings of fact and order approving the application as submitted. Vice Chair Cullather seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Henry, Cullather
Nays: Hendrick, Putzel, Chaplik
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-3.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to approve the order as drafted. Seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
Councilwoman Holleman thanked the Board and pointed out there are two valuable pieces of information she will take back to Council: the need to consider the historic aspect of properties, and in a global pandemic the need to expand the definition of hardship. She did not think this would be the first case to be impacted by the pandemic.
Mr. Abrams thanked the Board for their consideration.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop reminded the Board of the Legal Training for May 21, 2020 at 6:30 PM. There will be no regular meeting at 7:30 PM.
Councilwoman Holleman stated the Board could email their questions to Planner Burhop.
Member Henry asked the Board members to submit their statement of economic interest to the County.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:45 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2363&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up