City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 1.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Vice Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: Chaplik
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop (physically at City Hall), Later
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 3, 2020
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2020 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Cullather, Hendrick
Nays: None
Abstain: Henry
The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 9-16-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-10-VAR-018
Property: 1050 Devonshire Ct.
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Jennifer & Jeff Lewison
Address: 1050 Devonshire Ct., 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, renderings, photos, EBS review, other comments and requested relief.
Vice Chair Cullather asked to see the other photos.
Member Putzel stated it looked as though almost all the neighbors encroach in the side yard based on the driveways.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct however the GIS seemed to be off. Member Putzel stated maybe it is not accurate.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Member Bay asked if the other houses in compliance with the setback were older or newer.
Planner Burhop stated the subject property was built was 1977 and the adjacent was 1970.
Member Bay asked if the house to the east was older or newer. He asked if the setbacks lines existed in the 1970s.
Planner Burhop stated since the SBL existed since 1924.
Member Bay asked if they were permitted and built in violation of the setback lines without any relief being sought or granted.
Planner Burhop stated this was correct. The subject property and the neighbor to the east were built over it and properly permitted. The next one at 1036 meets the SBL. 1034 was built in 1977 the same year as the subject property.
Mr. Michael Carney, Architect, made a presentation including Highland Park’s Section 150, it complies with the standards, reasonable return, intent is to provide an entry to the home, easily identifiable to street, 75% of 50’ wide property occupied by the residence and driveway, precludes construction on east side, due to existing design they are limited to where they can provide a main entry, locating in front would negatively impact the neighborhood, was constructed in the 1970s and is unchanged with the exception of interior finishes and fixtures, addition is not detrimental to public welfare, the public park with a berm is a natural buffer, with addition proposed it is a single story, no residence to west, no blockage of natural light, improvements will benefit neighborhood, inconspicuous front door, overall site plan, east of property is filled with driveway, entrance into living room, secondary entrance is to kitchen, existing floor plan, proposed floor plan, project goals, want to create identifiable entry viewed from the street, create a separation between the entry and the residence, provide coat and shoe storage space to accommodate a growing family, pulled entry back, built-in closet, built-in bench, will be primary means of egress, not providing pinch point when people are coming in and out, fits in with neighborhood, looked at materials and new materials will matching existing, want to keep tree and are moving it closer to street, trees are a natural buffer and create additional level of separation from park and provides additional level of privacy.
Vice Chair Cullather asked how wide is the existing vs. the proposed. Mr. Carney stated it comes out to a little over 5’.
Ms. Jennifer Lewison, Owner, stated they want a space to watch the kids get on and off the bus, a place for their coat and shoes and a spacious front entry.
Mr. Jeff Lewison, Owner, stated the goal is to put them in line with the other houses with a front entry. He also wanted to create space for additional storage.
Member Bay asked if the Park District had been noticed.
Planner Burhop stated yes and the Director followed up with an email. He sent an explanation and they did not follow up.
Mr. Todd Jacobs, 1034 Devonshire, Resident, stated the Lewisons are great neighbors and their kids are friends and they play in the park next door. It is not detrimental and it would be great to have a central entranceway. Right now they just have a side door. When looking at the house from the street a central doorway would be a great thing to have. One central place to go and not circling around house is a way to feel a little safer. Having a street doorway is also safer. Being at the park every day, it is in no way disruptive and you will not notice any difference. There are natural boundaries and it is recessed from front of the house. He hoped they can get this done.
Planner Burhop stated they had received no other comments.
Member Henry stated it is a reasonable request and he saw the hardship in that there is no where else to do this. It does not make sense to go further into the front yard or the back yard where the two-car garage is on a long and narrow lot. The proposed addition is not any farther than the bulk of the house. It is already non-conforming. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Member Putzel stated the presentation was very thorough and agreed with Member Henry. It is a no-brainer and based on the width of the lot, there are no other options. She thought it was a reasonable request, met the standards and would support the application.
Member Bay agreed and understood having the proximity of the park and a front entrance hidden around the side. He thought the safety issue was a big concern. He saw the hardship and the location in order to get a reasonable return. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.
Member Zaransky agreed and thought it was a reasonable request and would support the application.
Member Hendrick agreed and thought it met the standards. Regarding the reasonable return, he had a house similar to this and it would help the return. He thought it was a well laid out plan.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and appreciated the thoroughness of the presentation. It was a reasonable ask and would support the application.
Vice Chair Cullather entertained motion to adop the approval order as presented in the packet. Member Putzel so motioned to approve as drafted, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to approve the order as drafted
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Henry, Bay, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the motion carried 6-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
None
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Adoption of Zoning Board of Appeals Schedule of Meetings Resolution for 2021 Calendar Year
Planner Burhop stated this was intended for all the meetings to start at 7:30 PM. However they meant to change this to 6:30 PM. He asked for any comments or feedback from the Board. He stated there are several boards and commissions that meet at 6:30 PM and it is the City’s intention to move all boards and commissioners towards 6:30 PM.
Planner Later stated the Housing Commission is at 6:30PM and the other Community Development commissions start at 7:30 PM. They would like all the meetings to start at 6:30 PM. This is what they are proposing tonight. They are not looking for an approval tonight unless they all agree. If they need time to think about this they can bring it back to the next meeting.
Member Bay stated they would probably still be virtual at that point. For him 6:30 PM would be a rush and had a problem changing to 6:30 PM. 7:00 PM seems more reasonable and he was not crazy about committing to a 6:30 PM meeting especially when they go back to City Hall.
Member Hendrick stated he has two young children and getting home from work and doing this every other Thursday would be difficult at 6:30 PM. He liked being a part of the Board but he does not get to day care until 6:00 PM. He understood the other meetings, but his input was that a lot of Highland Park citizens would find it difficult. It is not practicable with two young kids. He would not be able to serve anymore if the meetings were changed to 6:30 PM.
Member Henry stated Member Hendrick did have a say because it is up to the Board to determine what time they meet. It is not up to the City to do that. It is up to the Board. He is going off the Board in December. He thought 6:30 PM is too early. He comes from downtown and 6:30 PM is a tough time. He has kids who have young kids and they would never make a 6:30 PM meeting. Coming from downtown, making the 7:30 PM meeting is a challenge. He thought 6:30 PM is too early and cuts into time for a lot of families who have applications before the Board.
Member Zaransky stated he has three kids six and under and 6:30 PM would be a rush.
Planner Later stated they can motion to approve at 7:30 PM or they can wait until the next meeting.
Member Putzel motioned to approve at 7:30 PM and not change. This suits most of the members and if they are not there they cannot hold a meeting. Member Henry seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed: 6-0
Vice Chair Cullather stated two members are going off the Board at the end of the year. He asked if any members of the public were interested in volunteering to be on the Board.
Member Putzel asked who the second member is.
Vice Chair Cullather stated it was Chair Chaplik.
Councilwoman Holleman stated the Mayor makes the appointments with consent of Council.
Vice Chair Cullather stated they have not had a student liaison in months. Planner Later stated they have notified the City Manager’s office.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Vice Chair Cullather entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather
Nays: None
The Vice Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:30 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2428&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up