City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 6.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:31 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 (Physically Present at City Hall), Jackson
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 23, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2020 meeting.
Member Putzel so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 7-22-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-08-VAR-013
Property: 1764 Lake Ave. Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone
Appellant: Gabriel & Lisa Korach
Address: 1764 Lake Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, existing survey, proposed site plan, zoning analysis, elevation plans, photos, other comments, letter of support from resident, David Small, and requested relief.
Member Hendrick asked if the garage had been granted a variance previously.
Planner Burhop stated it is legal non-conforming and there were no variations on file.
Member Bay asked if the garage is detached.
Planner Burhop stated, per code, it might be considered attached because the walkway already connects it.
Member Bay stated it was not in the buildable area outlined. If it is attached it would have to be a legal non-conforming structure. His concern was what is legal when it is detached vs. attached and are they making it a legal non-conforming structure by attaching it.
Planner Burhop stated garages are not allowed in side yards. From the code it would already be considered attached because the walkway connects it. The status of the garage would not be impacted by this relief request.
Vice Chair Cullather stated it is a four-car garage with loft. He asked if that meant the loft is included in the s.f. or would it be in the future.
Planner Burhop stated the only floor area being created is the enclosure of the walkway. The garage and the loft already count towards floor area.
Councilwoman Holleman asked how large the piece they are asking for is.
Planner Burhop stated it is 3.5’ x 8.4’ wide. The total area is just under 30 s.f. It is not the entire walkway.
Mr. Mark Downey, Architect, stated the home was built 1900 and has undergone interior and exterior renovations over the years. The home needs a complete updating for the interior and exterior and lacks a mud room with enclosed access from the garage to the house. The enclosed covered walkway is for a mud room in the rear entrance. There will be no additional encroachment other than what already exists.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated it is a 120-year old home and a lot of work went into trying to calculate the side yards, it is an odd shaped lot and a lot of work went into trying to determine what the north side yard setback is and staff and the architect settled on the 86.45’. This has rendered the house and garage non-conforming. He has determined this predates this provision of the code and has been there for several decades. They are trying to update the home and there is a lot of work going into this besides enclosing the walkway and they intend to do a lot of upgrading to the home and restore it. They need to attach the garage to create a mud room. They want to enclose the walkway and almost all of it can be enclosed as a matter or right and there is only about 30 s.f. they need the variance for. The neighbor to the west supports the variance and so does Mr. Small. There is no new roof and no additional bulk. Regarding the reasonable return, they are trying to take a 120-year old home and update it for modern living. They desire a covered walkway and mud room. Without periodic updating the home would lose its value making it a candidate for a tear down. The hardship is the existing non-conformity and they did not create the walkway nor the garage and it predates the zoning code. The desire to upgrade an existing non-conforming home is driving this request. It will not be detrimental to the public welfare and will impair the adequate supply of light or air it and will not alter the character of the neighborhood. They are trying to preserve an important home on a prominent lot and it is something that needs to be preserved. If frequent updatings do not occur somewhere along the line the property will be worth more for the land than the improvements on it. The owners want to improve it. They are asking for approval for this deminimus request allowing them to encroach less than 30 s.f. into the side yard which is huge with a setback of 86.45 s.f.
Chair Chaplik stated given the property has a roof, floor and pad, can the owner do this by right without a variation.
Planner Burhop stated that portion of the walkway that encroaches would be considered a non-conforming structure. There are two trigger points – you cannot create a new non- conformity and you cannot increase the degree of the non-conformity. Creating floor area is increasing the degree of nonconformity.
Chair Chaplik stated the enclosure is what increases it. Planner Burhop stated this was correct.
Member Zaransky stated he would support the variance. The lot has a lot hardships and the setbacks are strange and it is hard to even calculate it. He thought it met the standards as far as the reasonable return and they are putting in a significant amount of money. He wondered why they even need a variance, but understood Planner Burhop’s explanation. He appreciated the applicant and his team going through the process.
Member Hendrick stated he agreed and thought it was surprising they even need the variance.
Member Bay stated he would support and thought it met the standards, was a deminimus request and an improvement that should be granted.
Member Putzel stated it was a deminimus request, would support it and thought it met the standards.
Member Henry stated he agreed and thought it met the standards and was not sure why it need a variation inasmuch as the walkway is considered part of the FAR and they are not increasing it. They are just putting walls around a foundation and roof. He appreciated that they worked with staff.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed and was glad staff took the conservative approach and did not handle it as an administrative decision and brought it to the Board.
Chair Chaplik stated he agreed and remembered a similar situation on Crofton where a garage that had a walkway was being enclosed. He thought it met the standards and he would support the application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to draft findings of fact and order approving the application as submitted. Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion with respect to the order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order as drafted, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there are three new applications for the August 20th meeting.
Planner Burhop stated regarding the changes to zoning standards, staff will transmit the feedback to Council. He will advise the Board if and how that changes.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Adoption of the FY2021 ZBA Work Plan:
Member Henry asked if it should be FY 2020 on the plan.
Planner Burhop stated he updated it from last year so if it was wrong then this one is wrong.
Member Henry stated it says FY 2019.
Planner Burhop stated it should be updated. This is on agenda for action and they are looking for a vote. The ZBA budget is essentially the same year to year. It is very prescribed and everything on the budget is the same as last year. This year there have been 16 cases, last year there were 28, the year before that there were 30, and the year before that was close to 60.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve with changes noted by Member Henry. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the 2020-21 work plan with the changes proposed by Member Henry. Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion to adopt as presented with revision.
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:16 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2400&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up