City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 4.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
This meeting was held virtually using an online conferencing tool.
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 (7:48), Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Jackson, Later
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 7, 2020 & May 21, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2020 and May 21, 2020 meetings. Member Putzel, so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Chaplik, Hendrick, Putzel, Zaransky (Henry Aye on May 7, 2020 Minutes)
Nays: None
Abstain: Henry (May 21, 2020)
Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 5-13-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-06-VAR-007
Property: 210 Lakeside Place, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District R5
Appellant: Mark Kerber
Address: 210 Lakeside Place, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Jackson made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, rear yard diagram, site photos, rear yard coverage, relief requested and other comments.
Mr. Mark Kerber, Applicant, stated he has chronic seepage and drainage problems stemming from the patio that is being replaced, water runs up to the foundation, there is a berm along the back property line, patio sits low and is lowest part of lot and is natural place for water to accumulate, at north end there is set of cellar stairs to basement, patio has settled and the existing concrete sidewalk has pitched upward and angled inward toward house, during storms back walkway can turn into a stream to the basement, has done perimeter drainage system, replaced gutters and downspouts, cannot solve unless pitch and drainage get water out of back of house so it can flow forward to street, small rear lot, irregular shape, large trees make area dark and almost impossible to grow anything, patio is highest and best use, did not create issue, removed 12’ x 12’ piece of concrete at the south end of patio, unless he can complete drainage project he will not be able to address seepage issue, has significant impact on property to maintain return, based on existing topographical and lot size, will not adversely affect neighborhood, patio is pretty close to invisible, will look neater, has no secondary effects on the neighborhood.
Member Bay asked if he would be regrading or changing the elevation to address drainage problem.
Mr. Kerber stated it is the lowest part of the patio and is nearest the house and he will re-lay that and get the drainage moving away. There is going to be a perforated drainage pipe along the western edge of the patio and from there on around to the north side and that will drain into to a pop-up onto his property. The natural flow is away from house to Lakeside Pl.
Member Bay asked if it will go into street and into the storm sewer.
Mr. Kerber stated he had looked at all drainage solutions and connecting to the sewer system, but that was a non-starter. They have come up with the best solution for getting the water to go where it needs to go.
Member Bay asked if they are going to replace it with pavers.
Mr. Kerber stated it is a more modern interlock paver with a semi-porous surface.
Member Bay asked if the applicant did this in three separate sections could he do it as a matter of right.
Planner Burhop stated when you have a non-conforming structure you are allowed to repair it. If you demolish if 50% or more it is considered a demolition and has to comply the code. If you repaired it and replaced it less than 50% over time possibly you could get away with it, but that’s not what the code allows.
Member Bay stated he thought it was worth pointing out. Chair Chaplik asked the size of the new patio.
Mr. Kerber stated it was the same footprint.
Councilwoman Holleman stated they may be able to do it in pieces, but they do not want to encourage this. This is truly a water mitigation issue that is not going to be resolved piecemeal.
Mr. Kerber stated they are holding off on laying carpet in the basement until they can get this done.
Chair Chaplik mentioned the Forester’s memo and asked if any of the recommendations would be troublesome.
Mr. Kerber stated the Forester’s only comment was on tree preservation. There is a large old spruce and he did have three large trees removed. The trees were the culprits in lifting the sidewalk. He intends to keep the one that is still there. They do not want cut roots larger than 1” because they do not want to destabilize the tree. He does not have information from his landscaper that would indicate any problems in working around the tree.
Member Henry stated the Forester stated should the variance be approved and construction move forward, all excavation within 10’ of the tree must be done by hand and any roots greater than 1” in diameter must be left intact to insure the structural stability of this tree. He asked if approved with the provision that it has to meet the Forester’s comments, would that be acceptable to him.
Mr. Kerber stated absolutely, and if there is a problem they will take care of it right way.
Member Zaransky stated he thought it met the criteria and no one wants a wet basement and it is the same size patio. He would support the application.
Member Hendrick agreed and would support the application. The written and oral testimony was thorough and it meets the standards.
Member Bay stated it meets the standards and would support the application subject to the requisites by the Forester.
Member Putzel stated she had nothing to add and was in agreement that it meets the standards. They are replacing what they already have and it was a no brainer.
Member Henry agreed and if you look at the outlay of the property there is not much that conforms whatsoever. It is a corner lot and has some very long setbacks. It is an unusual and unique circumstance that the applicant did not create. He thought it met the standards and would support the application with the caveat that they include the Forester’s comments insofar as that is not part of the permitting process.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he missed the presentation and would remain silent.
Chair Chaplik agreed and thought it met the standards and it is an easy one for him. He would support the application subject to incorporating the Forester’s memo.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact that the application be approved as submitted with the caveat that included in the order is the statement all excavation within 10’ of the tree must be done by hand and any roots greater than 1” in diameter must be left intact to insure the structural stability of the tree. Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion for staff to draft an approval order approving the application as submitted with the condition as stated in the Forester’s memo, all excavation within 10’ of the tree must be done by hand and any roots greater than 1” in diameter must be left intact to insure the structural stability of the tree.
Planner Burhop stated he had received no emails regarding this item. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Chaplik
Nays: None
Abstain: Cullather
The Chair declared the Motion passed: 6-0
Planner Burhop stated there was a draft approval order which did not have the conditions in it. He thought a motion could be made to adopt the approval order amended specifically with the condition from the Forester’s memo for the two requirements. This way it would not have to come back for another meeting.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion.
Member Bay made a motion to revise the submitted approval order to include the Forester’s memo’s two conditions. Member Henry seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion to adopt the approval order with amendment that it be conditioned that all excavation within 10’ of the tree must be done by hand and any root greater that 1” in diameter must be left intact to insure the structural stability of the tree.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Chaplik
Nays: None
Abstain: Cullather
The Chair declared the Motion passed: 6-0
Councilwoman Holleman stated the house is lovely and thanked Mr. Kerber for preserving the home.
Mr. Kerber stated they would have a century birthday for the house in two years.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there is one application for the next meeting on June 18, 2020.
Planner Burhop stated the State Legislature may pass legislation on virtual meetings and staff will advise the Board as appropriate.
Chair Chaplik stated it look like it was codifying by law instead of executive orders if certain occur municipalities are allowed to have meetings like this.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Henry so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:15 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2381&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up