City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 20.
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, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: Hendrick
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop (Physically), Later, Torres
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman (Left meeting at 9:00 pm)
Corporation Counsel: Passman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 6, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2020 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 8-5-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-04-VAR-003
Property: 1157 Taylor Ave.
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Chicago Title Land Trust Co. as Trustee Under Trust Agreement 8002371769 Dated 8-25-16
Address: 2825 N. Arlington Heights Rd., Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, photos, aerial view, 2017 and 2020 surveys, 2020 site plan, site plan zoning review, elevation plans, pre-existing elevation plan, existing elevation plans, EBS review, FAR review, City comments, neighbor comments and photos by Mr. Jerry Felsenthal and requested relief.
Chair Chaplik asked why the Hillary properties are included in the Taylor established setback.
Planner Burhop stated there is no exception for through lots and the platted right-of-way continues.
Member Putzel stated it looks like they had already started construction.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know the state of the garage and it is mostly complete. It was done without benefit of permits. They are asking relief for the garage.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if this is not approved do they need to take it back to the status of a carport.
Planner Burhop stated there would be some kind of enforcement action.
Member Bay asked if there was a stay on the enforcement action pending the Board’s decision.
Planner Burhop stated the Bldg. Div. Mgr. and Mr. Passman were here. He asked if they had comments.
Mr. Passman stated the enforcement proceedings concluded today and the previous contractor was fined for work not done in compliance with building permits. The owner was fined for improper storage of materials and for tall grasses. There are no further citations pending at this time.
Mr. Jorge Torres, Bldg. Div. Mgr., started there was an administrative hearing this afternoon and the contractor was found liable for doing more work than the permit allowed and was fined. Two current violations were issued this year for tall weeds and for construction materials. They were found liable and fined.
Member Bay asked if the enforcement issues were addressed any of the zoning issues. Mr. Torres stated no, but they have to pull a permit for the demolition or for the garage.
Member Bay stated the existing carport was an existing non-conforming use so that was not an issue.
Planner Burhop the carport was legally non-conforming and was allowed to stay there.
Member Bay asked if this was a one-car carport and is it going to be a one-car garage.
Planner Burhop stated it is a one-car garage.
Member Bay stated the largest amount of relief that is requested has to do with the violation with the front established building setback.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Bay stated it looks like on the chart about the established building setbacks, this house is goes farther forward than any other house on the street.
Planner Burhop stated it is the closest to Taylor.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the existing carport as originally built is current non- conforming.
Planner Burhop stated the carport was non-conforming with respect to the established building setback.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if the variance is denied will they need to consider a variance for the existing carport for them to take it back to that status.
Planner Burhop stated they will have to come back into conformance either meeting the zoning code or revert it back.
Mr. Passman stated this is not related to the standards before the Board. They need to focus on the standards themselves.
Vice Chair Cullather stated if they have to grant the same variation and the difference is whether is not it is enclosed it would be good to have that information before the Board.
Mr. Passman stated he would have to analyze more what would happen. One of the catches is that the work did start. He would analyze it as though that were before the Board. He encouraged the Board to approach this as though the work had not started.
Chair Chaplik asked about the lot coverage calculations and was the prior carport not counted because it was not enclosed in the FAR calculations.
Planner Burhop stated the carport would not have been counted in the original FAR calculation because it is open on three sides similar to a porch.
Chair Chaplik stated the increase in lot coverage is because it is enclosed and all the square footage is an increase in the FAR.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct.
Mr. John Kantor, Attorney, stated the petitioner was a co-owner with a prior owner who was acting as the general contractor and took it upon himself to enclose the carport without permit, all work done has been plywood in on all sides, there are no foundations for walls, the permit will be for construction of the garage, no foundation under the walls, no substantial things need to be done to turn it into a garage, his client did not authorize the work regarding the garage, they are asking the Board to assume nothing has been done and they are looking for relief based on a carport that exists, has not been converted to a garage, carport was not counted in the FAR and their proposal is to tear down the garage in the back yard which lowers the FAR but since they are enclosing the front carport it puts them over the limit, if they did not need a variance the square footage would be allowed under the bonus provision of the ordinance, they are not asking much more than what would be allowed by code, carport is encroaching on the setback and side yard, they are not asking for more than is there now, problem with the project is the existing garage in back and you have to go through the carport and a narrow driveway to get to the yard, the way the garage was constructed you cannot pull into the garage because the corner of the house is impinging on the entrance to the garage, it is hazardous to pull into the existing garage because the house is in the way, you cannot maneuver the driveway, moving the garage to the front is to alleviate the safety issue, when they remove garage and driveway they will get rid of concrete and asphalt which is covering the lot and the flood plain issue will be helped because they are increasing the pervious area, they had a permit for the second floor addition and the garage issue came up after construction on the house and they want to resolve the parking issue so they can sell the house, if they leave it as a carport they cannot sell the house and no one will buy it without a garage.
Member Henry stated he understood the garage is being built on basically the same footprint as the carport.
Mr. Kantor stated it will be exactly where the carport is.
Chair Chaplik stated they are asking for 74’ increase to the FAR. The garage is 32’ long which is in excess of a normal garage. He asked if they considered deleting 5’ off the back and make it a 27’ garage and there would be no FAR issue.
Mr. Kantor stated the entrance to the house is through the garage and the steps encroach into the parking area where vehicle is. It is a longer garage but they cannot use whole garage because part of a the rear portion is the stairs and entryway to home. The carport was longer than proposed so the back wall is a foot or two less than the original carport. The issue was the way the roof line runs and if they shorten the back wall there are issues with the roof that is there now in terms of framing and support.
Mr. Jerry Felsenthal, 1185 Taylor, Highland Park, IL, stated he is the Director of the Taylor HOA with 35 members. This property has been continuing problem on the street. He sent photos to Planner Burhop showing the front and side of the building and the east side does not have any covering. The front has just two pieces of plywood. The petitioner got the permit in Jan. 2017 and since then they have a house where the side is not finished and the front is not finished. Before the garage they want him to finish which is what he was supposed to do in first place. After three years they have been in court and the have been fines between $28,000-$32,000. There is nothing inside the property after three years - no fixtures, electrical, plumbing or drywall. If you look at the front of the property he was to enclose the garage and it would extend south.
Chair Chaplik stated they are asking for the Board to approve the enclosure of the carport into a garage and tearing down the old garage and removing driveway.
Mr. Felsenthal stated it does not go further towards Taylor and the garage will be within the property and there will be no garage sticking out from the front of the building.
Mr. Kantor stated he thought Mr. Felsenthal thought they were going to build the garage 12’ closer to the street and they are not extending the garage into the 25’ setback. It will be flush where the plywood is and it will go toward the back yard.
Member Henry stated the front of the proposed garage is going to be flush with house.
Mr. Kantor stated yes and it will be about.5’ back from the front of the house.
Mr. Felsenthal asked if there was a time limit on the variance. It has taken them three years and going to court to get to were they are now. He did not know if they had the financing.
Mr. Kantor stated part of the problem was his client was a partner with another party and he did many things wrong. It took them three years to get him out of the project and he is sole beneficiary of the trust and they have every intention of moving forward as soon as the permit it issued and finish it. They want to sell it and his client is not one who caused the problems.
Mr. Felsenthal stated regarding the windows they showed contracts and it took seven months for the windows to come it. Once they grant the variance there will be all sorts of construction materials on the property. There have been materials sitting there for a year and a half.
Chair Chaplik stated that is the purview of the Building Dept. and not within their decision making authority. What is before them is whether to permit the conversion of the garage. They have a year to start the work and material storage, etc. is subject to the Building Dept.’s enforcement mechanisms.
Mr. Felsenthal stated they were looking for a time limit to actually get it done so they do not have more materials lying around the property.
Chair Chaplik stated there is a year to commence the work and how long do they have to finish.
Mr. Kantor stated their intention is to move forward as soon as permits are issued. They are not trying to delay the project. In the front yard there is siding for the carport and those materials will be removed and put into the house or garage.
Mr. Felsenthal stated he appreciated that and it has been so many years. The neighbor next door has his house for sale for $760,000. They want the street done. He understood you can get a permit to start but there is nothing in the code to enforce this. The contractor put a second floor on the house and it has sat there for the last couple of years. The City has no limit on the amount of time they have to do it.
Member Henry stated they cannot speak for the Building Dept. and the enforcement mechanism it totally within their purview. Should the Board determine the applicant has met the standards they are required to apply the order requires them to commence within 12 month of granting of the order. It says the applicant shall prosecute all work authorized by the building permit to completion without unnecessary delay. It is ultimately within the authority of the City to do this.
Mr. Felsenthal stated a garage is a saleable item to make the property better and he wanted to clarify a few things.
Chair Chaplik asked Mr. Kantor if they received comments from any other neighbors. Mr. Kantor stated they had not any received comments other than the certified letter.
Chair Chaplik asked Planner Burhop if the only comments he received were from Mr. Felsenthal.
Planner Burhop stated he did speak with Mr. Louie Vignocchi.
Mr. Louis Vignocchi, neighbor, stated he has lived in Highland Park his whole life. He has been in the old existing house and it has a small basement which is probably flooded now. There was a carport with a garage in the back which with the old house, you could access. When they when started construction they were happy this was going to take place. He stated he did not like the encroachment of 1’ but he would like to see the place finished and it is an eyesore.
Member Zaransky stated he would reserve his final comments and wanted to hear what the other members had to say. If this project came in with a clean slate he would support it. To the neighbor’s point, the best path forward is approving the variance and denying it would put the site in limbo for years to come.
Member Bay stated he agreed with Member Zaransky and he would try to do this objectively as if it came in without any problems. He thought the standards had been met and it makes sense to have a one-car garage where there was a carport. It seemed silly to put it anywhere else. The hardship is not to have a garage. He wondered if there was a way to reconfigure the garage but he understood that might create a roofing issue. He would support the variance.
Member Putzel agreed and thought they had taken a lot of time discussing issues that do not fall under their jurisdiction. She thought they had met the standards and it was harmonious to have it completed. She questioned the length of the garage and if it is being taken up by stairs it would make it difficult to complete.
Member Henry agreed with the other members and it is their job to ignore all the detritus that comes with the application. He was grateful the City did not issue the building permit by mistake and then discovered it was not within the zoning code. When you take the application by itself and without considering all of the outside noise, it meets the standards. It is being built on the same footprint as the carport. To the extent they have discussed drainage issues, it will take away some of the asphalt and the garage. Although the FAR bothered him a little, the fact that if they were entitled to the bonus they would be within it. It is a small increase over the FAR. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he agreed and thought it was a more difficult case coming into it without having seen the condition of the building. He too was looking at whether it was feasible to shorten the garage to reduce the FAR or make it narrower. The width is on the borderline. He would support the application.
Chair Chaplik agreed and felt for the neighbors and felt it met the standards. He was originally concerned as to whether the owner caused any element of this. If they had just started with the carport as is he would have approved as meeting the standards.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Henry moved to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the application as submitted. Vice Chair Cullather seconded.
Mr. Passman stated the draft order was in the packet.
Planner Burhop stated the motion was to direct staff to draft findings and approval order.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the draft order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order, seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Henry, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
Chair Chaplik asked about the optimal language if someone wishes to make a motion approving the matter and order as drafted.
Mr. Passman stated there would have to be an order in the packet to do so. Someone can move to approve variation and to adopt the order as presented.
Member Henry stated the code requires them to make findings of fact as well as an order. The code says they have to make findings of fact in the approval order for the reason it was a two-step process.
Mr. Passman stated they always did it in two steps. The form of the order that has been honed over the years contains findings. The way the order is written is that the findings would satisfy the condition on the zoning code. They tried to make it one document for ease of administration.
Member Henry asked if the motion would be they adopt the findings of fact and proposed order as drafted.
Mr. Passman stated he had no qualms with that alternate.
Member Henry stated he wanted to make sure the record is clear that should someone take it up on appeal that findings of fact were made and they expressly adopted them.
Mr. Passman stated it would not hurt.
2. #20-08-V AR-014
Property: 3155 Dato Ave.
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: Matthew Kustusch (Principal, MKA Architectural Design Group) On Behalf Of Property Owners, Wendy Sabul-Mintzer and Max Mintzer
Address: 1450 Park Ave., Unit C, 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, existing site, proposed site, elevation plans, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Mr. Mintzer stated he had no comments.
Mr. Matthew Kustusch, Architect, stated they are requesting the additional width and the issue is the entry to the house which is adjacent to driveway. They pass the main entrance to the house before the carport. Because of that they want to incorporate a 3’ walk adjacent to the house to allow for people to stand. That is the only reason they need to encroach into the side yard setback. The have the absolute minimum for a garage door and it does not allow for circulation in the garage or towards the front door. There are not many options for configuration. They are trying to blend into character of the home and the carport is already difficult to get into and they both own cars. They need full time cover to protect from the weather and for circulation in the garage and the only to do it is to add the additional 3’.
Chair Chaplik stated they had submitted a letter of hardship.
Member Zaransky stated he had read the letter and was in favor of the application. He thought it met the standards.
Member Bay agreed and thought it met the standards and would approve the application. Member Putzel agreed and thought a two-car garage is standard in Highland Park.
Member Henry agreed and had some concerns about a full 3’ encroachment. He thought it met the standards.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and thought the letter spelled it out very well with the ability to have a two-car garage on this property.
Chair Chaplik agreed and appreciated the hardship letter. They tried to do the minimum necessary for a two-car garage. There is some space behind the house but they cannot get car in there and they have done what they can and have not asked for more. He thought it met the standards and would approve.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to approve the variance and adopt the draft order with the change identified by Planner Burhop.
Chair Chaplik stated he was referring to the change from 28’ to 27’. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
3. #20-08-V AR-015
Property: 2113 Park Lane
Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay
Appellant: Leslie & Greg Apter
Address: 2113 Park Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, lot-in-depth, existing survey, proposed site plan, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Member Putzel asked how many inches or feet the deck is proposed to be above ground. Planner Burhop stated he would refer this to the applicant.
Member Putzel stated if they were replacing the patio but not going above the height would they be able to do that without a permit.
Planner Burhop stated patios or decks 12” or less can encroach into the side yard up to 2’ from the property line.
Ms. Nancy Lyon Hannick, Designer, made a presentation including letter of hardship, it is a unique property and lot-in-depth, is located on a ravine, property has limited table land with the exception with the east wing, original house was torn down in 2005 a new house with garage was built over original footprint, east wing of house which is the family room predates the requirement of codes and became a legal non-conforming structure, it is 15” from the property line, on south face of structure are two doors that are 3’-9” above grade, in order to exit the building steps need to be built out of the building or a structure built at same level to exit, on the east side there is a service entrance 3’ above grade, the lot-in-depth code is restrictive hardship for the side yard setbacks to be 200% which is 24’ in this case, they would not be able to build the stairs into the structure, the previous owners constructed concrete block stairs and walls to access family room, another set of concrete block walls and stairs provide access to the mud room, they are partially within the acceptable area but outside of the buildable area, a paver terrace covers the east side of house, large trees block sunlight into space, an asphalt driveway backup area adds impervious surface to the east, applicant contacted NLH Landscape Architects in the spring of 2020 to remediate several issues that impact the structure, more frequent rain events have increased the water flow towards the house resulting in water collection at the basement level of the family room, side yard slopes at 8% from south to north, rotting fascia boards are a continuous maintenance issue, settlement and deterioration of the block wall/step combinations cause service entry to be awkward and hazardous, current family room does not meet current code, space lacks seasonal interest and existing paver terrace speeds water flow towards the house, applicant asked to develop a solution that would resolve the structural issues and improve use of the space, they want to age in place, design goal is to eliminate the use of masonry against side of house to prevent building rot, reduce impervious surface, runoff and improve drainage, improve access from driveway to mud room by decreasing slope and eliminating as many steps as possible, improve flow from family room to outside space, increase light penetration into space, increase greenery, install fencing to keep dog in yard and provide area for vegetable garden, east side of yard is only usable table land homeowners have, application of code severely restricts the side yard and imposes hardship preventing any construction within the 24’ side yard setback except for replacing hardscape, replacing hardscape and reconstructing the concrete block stairs is not a viable solution, deck will eliminate maintenance problems, solution selected includes a deck and terrace combination allowing easy access from driveway to service door, deck will be composite material uniting all three points requiring minimum steps, improving transitions from outside to inside and providing long term solution, blue stone sidewalk leading from driveway along side garage transitions to deck, walkway is 2’ above grade while main deck varies 2’-3’ above grade, east yard slopes 8% south to north, a 12” high deck would not achieve these goals, a lower terrace is reached by steps down from deck paved with blue stone and retained by 2’ high wall, a portion of driveway is removed to decrease impervious surface and provide garden area, original layout of hardscape has 1,046 s.f. of impervious surface, new design decreases by 65% reducing runoff, deck and terrace do not extend beyond current footprint, with increased area to absorb runoff two drains will connect to existing system and with improved grading drainage issues will improve, will allow repair of siding of facade, better air flow and less maintenance, narrow shaped arbor vitae will improve light and air flow, hardship was not created by anyone seeking proprietary interest in property, it was the 200% setback imposed upon the lot-in-depth, design will not be detrimental or diminish property values, will not increase congestion, will be improvement and is in harmony with essence of code, is in compliance with current codes, house is legal non-conforming structure, request for deck is by right, seeking consideration of design and feel it is the best solution for space, without variance additional steps would be required and would make transitions cumbersome and less manageable.
Member Putzel asked how high off the ground is the deck.
Ms. Hannick stated it varies because the ground will slope. At the minimum it is 2’ and at the maximum it is 3’-9”.
Member Putzel asked if this was going to a door.
Ms. Hannick stated it was two doors, one the family room and one in the mud room.
Member Putzel asked if this was on the first level.
Ms. Hannick stated yes.
Chair Chaplik asked if the applicant has had flooding in the house as a result of the current configuration.
Ms. Hannick stated they have had issues about the siding and rot.
Chair Chaplik asked if there would be new drains installed.
Ms. Hannick stated there is only one drain in the area and they feel it requires more drainage structures. They have added another one and are using larger pipe.
Vice Chair Cullather asked to see the photos in the packet.
Ms. Hannick stated the door on the east wing of house which is 15” from the property line. There are three risers and a huge step into the house.
Planner Burhop stated the house was built in 2005 and the east wing pre-dates the home.
Ms. Hannick stated it is part of the original structure and it was retained because of the character and the new house was built with that wing. The other side looks out on the ravine. They want to have a continuous flow at the same elevation.
Chair Chaplik stated the door is about the same height as the pots.
Ms. Hannick stated the whole area goes up and down and up and down. She stated the steps are beginning to fail.
Ms. Leslie Apter, Applicant, (unintelligible)
Chair Chaplik asked Ms. Apter if she received comments from the neighbors.
Ms. Apter stated the only person was the neighbor to the east and he was concerned that they would be building outside the current property. She assured him the reasons they were asking for the variance was because they could not even build outside the door.
Member Zaransky stated it as a smart plan and the project solves a myriad of issues. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Member Bay agreed and thought the presentation was very thorough and it met the standards and would support it.
Member Putzel agreed and if the property had been at grade this would not be an issue. She thought it was an obvious yes and hoped it will solve the other issues.
Member Henry agreed and stated the property is challenged and what is proposed is the same footprint as what is there and solves a lot of problems the applicant is encountering. He thought it met the standards and would support it.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and thanked staff for explaining the lot-in depth and the hardships that exist. He would support the variance.
Chair Chaplik agreed and stated if it was flat they could build a patio as a matter of right. They are trying to be sensitive to the ravine and drainage and this is the right thing to do. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to approve the variance as requested and adopt the order as drafted. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there is one item for the September 3rd meeting.
Chair Chaplik stated he will be out of town.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Planner Burhop stated he had no update and the Board’s feedback and it will be taken to the Committee of the Whole and he will keep the Board apprised.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:47 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2408&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up