City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 8.
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, Hendrick, Zaransky
Members Absent: Henry, Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop (at City Hall), Kosmatka
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 4, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the June 4, 2020 meeting.
Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Zaransky
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 6-3-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, proposed site plan, encroachment review, elevation plan comparison – south, elevation plan comparison – west, aerial view, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay stated it looked as though the cladding is for increasing the energy efficiency of house and asked what the cladding will look like.
Planner Burhop stated the elevation plans were in the packet and he would defer this to the applicant.
Member Hendrick asked if there was an existing history of any variations being approved by the Board.
Planner Burhop stated he did check for variations on this specific property and there were none. It was built in 1951 and presumably it complied then.
Vice Chair Cullather asked to see the photo of the property adjacent to where the addition will be.
Planner Burhop showed photos of the subject property and the neighboring property. He stated they could see the aerial.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if it was close to the neighbor’s garage or was it close to some other portion of the neighbor’s house.
Planner Burhop stated it was close to the garage to the west and this neighbor did get a variation in 2004-05-06.
Chair Chaplik asked to see the setbacks and proposed variations requested. He asked what part of the proposed addition is permitted by right.
Planner Burhop stated the entire addition is by right except the portion which clips the setback line by 1.19’. When originally drawn the side yards were applied in the same manner as the lot width parallel to the front property line, and it did not need relief and was permissible. However, Planner Burhop explained with how the zoning code defines lot depth, lot width, and side yards, this is a situation where the lot width is calculated in manner parallel to the front property line, which is askew from the side yards. However, the side yards are applied parallel to the side property lines.
Chair Chaplik asked if this was a recent change.
Planner Burhop stated it was not a change, and it is all premised on definitions in the zoning code. Planner Burhop stated this property is not a rectangle, but askew.
Member Zaransky asked if the addition was for storage. Planner Burhop stated this was for storage.
Member Zaransky asked if the access was through the garage. Planner Burhop stated it was shown on the proposed floor plan.
Mr. Nathan Kipnis, Architect, made a presentation including it was a tricky project, the lot is skewed, garage is substandard and is 21’-10” deep and 18’-4” wide which is below normal, applicants ride bikes and need bike storage, door to north is a new door, garage is really tight and difficult to get around, storage is 7’ deep by 11’-6”, what they are doing is minimal, a microscopic corner for the window well is poking through.
Ms. Rachel Kaiser, Applicant, stated they are trying to honor the spirit of the zone and keep the addition as small as possible and they planned it as tight as they could. They are fond of the house trying to keep the overall appearance.
Chair Chaplik asked how the request meets the standards.
Ms. Kaiser stated they wanted to improve the insulation and soundness of the house and it is 70 years old.
Mr. Kipnis stated the variance is as minimal as possible, the acceptable way to do insulation is 2” of rigid on the outside of the building so the dew point stays out of the framing, bike storage is minimal, this is not the owner’s fault, house is laid out in a strange way, will not impact the character of neighborhood, not modifying anything in a significant way, it is basically identical, it is in the spirit of zoning code being as minimal as possible, no impact on light or neighbors.
Ms. Kaiser stated it is not unprecedented and is in keeping with what other residents have done on the street with small additions for a better quality.
Member Bay asked if the cladding is for weather efficiency and what will the material look like.
Mr. Kipnis stated currently it is brick and it will be cement fiber board.
Member Bay asked about the addition for the bike storage and was there a way to make it smaller to stay within the buildable area of right.
Mr. Kipnis stated there are multiple bikes, a lawn mower and outdoor equipment. The intent was for four bikes and a little yard equipment. The garage is substandard now and if compressed it would literally fit the four bikes.
Member Bay stated he was trying to justify it within the standards and how can they talk about an addition that is primarily a convenience and fit it into a hardship or reasonable return if not allowed.
Mr. Kipnis stated he did not know if he had been in a garage less than 20’ wide and it is substandard and difficult to move around. To get bikes in and out and everything else is a hardship and the garage is from the 1950s. He thought it was very minimal.
Member Zaransky asked if it killed the design to cut the corner at an angle.
Mr. Kipnis stated yes. To have an angled corner would be a monument to the zoning ordinance forever.
Member Hendrick asked what substandard means. He thought a two-car garage and then some met some standard definition.
Mr. Kipnis stated a typical garage is 20’ for every dimension. When they design new garages they are never 20’ x 20’ and are 22’ x 22’ or 24’ x 24’. Typically people store things along one wall but they have no room at all. It is challenging to get in and out as it is.
Ms. Kaiser stated the picture does not reflect the actual scale of the garage. The drawing rendering shows two mini cars. It is not unprecedented to have an extension or addition on the street. Having a larger garage is in keeping with the neighborhood. They are trying to bring the house up to par with everyone else on the block.
Member Hendrick stated he was concerned about the hardship.
Chair Chaplik asked if the addition could have been moved south to eliminate the encroachment at the northwest corner.
Mr. Kipnis stated it is set on the setback line.
Chair Chaplik stated by moving it south they would add a front setback variation request, but eliminate the side setback.
Mr. Kipnis stated he would rather keep the front of it with the massing of the width of the garage and not make it look really big from the front.
Ms. Kaiser stated with the bump out being smaller and set back, it makes a smaller impression for the neighbors.
Member Zaransky asked if there was another bump out from the back of the garage.
Mr. Kipnis stated it is for mud room items. If they had a bigger garage all of this would fit around the cars, but they have very little room.
Councilwoman Holleman thanked the applicant for making the change and not tearing down the house and it is a mid-century beauty. They prioritize these homes but it is not written in the zoning code and it is unfortunate they do not have a provision to make it easier to preserve and protect these classic homes. The request is extremely minimal and the hardship is the shape of lot. She appreciated they are trying to bring it up to standard with the neighbors in mind.
Chair Chaplik asked if there was an FAR issue.
Planner Burhop stated it is a relatively large property and the FAR allowance is high, so there is no FAR issue.
Chair Chaplik asked if there were any others questions.
Planner Burhop stated that Mr. Jim Turman, Neighbor, sent an email during the public hearing stating he did not wish to speak and supports the variance.
Member Hendrick stated he was struggling with this and it was deminimus, but he thought there was a solution for locating this within the boundaries. He did not think fitting four bikes in was a hardship. He would approve the cladding and window wells but thought the storage should be reworked. He would vote no on the storage.
Member Zaransky stated he would support the variance and it is minor. The lot is skewed and a hardship. He agreed with attempting to preserve homes, even if not historically protected.
Member Bay stated at first he thought this was an easy one and then it became a little more difficult for him. If the family were not cyclists they would not need the additional storage. They have the standards and while he may not like the result of applying the standards, he was obligated to apply them. He was having a hard time thinking that having less than 2’ for storage for bikes presents a hardship. He thought there may be a way to downsize this to not cause the encroachment.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they considered other options for additional storage on the property and, if so, were there constraints that kept them from doing so.
Ms. Kaiser stated there are steep slope problems in the back they are trying to respect. They cannot go east. They could tear the house down and build within the footprint. It is not a protected house. She stated that would be wasteful. There is no other logical place to stow garage like items.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they considered a shed in the back yard.
Ms. Kaiser stated they are on a ravine and it is restricted back there. Part of their value system is don’t make garbage. It is a nice house and they want to work with it. There is nowhere to put a lawn mower and she gardens. It is a hardship to get in and out of the garage just with the cars.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the hardship is the house which is tightly sited on the lot and it has a steep slope issue in rear yard which prevents them from putting additional space in the back yard. He thought that could justify the addition and the cladding which he did not see as a big issue. He thought the hard one was the reasonable return standard. In a 21st century house you need adequate storage space. They are not asking for a three-car garage. They are concerned about the architectural lines of house, and where it is closest to the neighbor’s property which is also a garage. He would support the addition and the cladding.
Chair Chaplik stated he was struggling with the code which is not perfect for situations like this. He thought the hardship was the unusual siting of house on the lot and there is a steep slope in the back. It is a skewed lot and the house is sited off the skew and there are all sorts of measurement issues. The garage is small and he understood the hardship. They have taken the effort to minimize the request. Historic protection is not one of the standards and he appreciated their efforts. The house was built in 1951 and the insulation is nothing like what it is today. To preserve an old house is the right thing to do. He would support the variance.
Member Bay stated it might be appropriate to let the applicant know there are five members present and a variance required four votes to pass. The odds are not as good for getting four votes out of five than four out of seven.
Chair Chaplik stated they need four affirmative votes to pass.
Mr. Kipnis asked to see the site plan and pointed out the way the lot is skewed the garage addition is actually the furthest back compared to the other bump outs over the setback on the side. He would have squared the house to the street in 1951. This projection is actually is the least close of all the other projections of the house. They received clarification from Planner Burhop on how to figure this out. He did not think it would come down to this close of a vote.
Member Bay stated in seeing where it is located and if the lot was not so skewed and they were to apply the setback lines where they would otherwise be applied in a rectangle lot, he would support the application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to direct staff to draft findings of fact for approval. Member Zaransky seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to direct staff to draft an approval order and findings of fact approving the application as presented.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: Hendrick
The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-1.
Chair Chaplik stated he appreciated the applicant’s effort. These are challenging and to not be the naysayers and respect the code they are obligated to follow. Highland Park has a strict zoning code and requests for variances are not taken lightly.
Councilwoman Holleman thanked the applicant for making the effort and not tearing down the house. It will be a bonus for the community and she appreciated the Board and the process they have to follow.
Member Hendrick stated applying the standards is challenging specifically when you introduce the historical context of the home. If they had flexibility in the code to consider historical preservation it would be helpful.
Mr. Kipnis thanked the Board for listening. Hopefully the house will be on the design awards tour. He is the past national co-chair of the AIA’s 2030 commitment and they are into sustainable design and exterior insulation is the way things are moving.
Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order as drafted by staff. Member Zaransky seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to adopt the approval order Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated the Open Meetings Act was amended by the State and Governor this week. As of now you have to allow ten people to come to the meeting and going forward it is possible they may have members of the public in council chambers. He did not know how long the current iteration will stay in effect. If this changes staff will be inform the board.
Chair Chaplik asked if there were mask rules or any protocols for those who wish to come in person.
Planner Burhop stated the way the language is drafted if people come to a meeting they have to wear a mask and social distancing will be enforced.
Planner Burhop stated July 9th is the next meeting and there are three applications. Vice Chair Cullather asked if they were meeting twice in July.
Planner Burhop stated there will be a meeting on July 9th and July 23rd, the next meeting will be August 6th if there is business.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:46 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2383&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up