City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 5.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:33 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),, Later
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Holleman (left at 9:27 pm)
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 15, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 15, 2020 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Henry. Vice Chair Cullather certified that he had viewed the meeting video and would vote on the motion. Member Hendrick stated he would abstain as he was absent the last meeting.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Abstain: Hendrick
The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 10-21-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-11-VAR-020
Property: 410 Oakland Drive, Highland Park, IL
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: Jeffrey Thomas & Katie McCabe on behalf of Property Owner, Kimberly Rudolph
Address: 410 Oakland Drive, Highland Park, IL
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan, first and second floor site plans, proposed and existing northwest elevations, proposed and existing southwest elevations, proposed and existing southeast elevations, proposed and existing northeast elevations, photos, EBS analysis, other comments, neighbor letters and requested relief.
Chair Chaplik asked if there was a FAR issue.
Planner Burhop stated they meet the FAR.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated the applicants have been living in the home four years, are tenants and have the option to purchase contingent on getting the variance. It is a unique property, is an existing non-conforming and most of house is outside the building envelope, house is 90 years old, is rated S for historical preservation, is it French eclectic and is considered locally significant, listed in the IL historical structure survey, known as the E.R. Hummrick house and the architect is Clifford Chappel who has many designs registered with the National Registry of Historical Places, he designed many of the Carnegie libraries through out the Midwest. They are trying to seek variances in order to make this home relevant for 21st century so it can be preserved for many years in the future. There are two issues with the house driving the request, existing garage only fits one car, are seeking to add 5’ to the garage in order to park two cars comfortably in the garage. One second floor there are two tandem bedrooms which means to enter one bedroom you have to walk through another bedroom. They want to modify layout of the second floor so you do not have to walk through the one bedroom. Allowable building envelope is small and pie shaped and nothing can be done without a variance. They are seeking front yard relief along the two streets, applicant has lived in the house four years, met with neighbors, there are nine letters of support, they want to preserve historic home.
Mr. Victor Lew, Architect, made a presentation including first floor plan, no connection between kitchen and family room, porch is small and remotely located, garage is too narrow for two cars, second floor plan, can only be used as a three bedroom, proposed first floor plan, have made effort to preserve 90% of existing home, raised up staircase, family room adjacent to kitchen, second floor laundry, provided access to the bedroom above garage, design techniques, symmetrical elevation, have respected original intent of design, important that second floor would extend from the width of existing two-story toward the rear, setback is 5.97’ beyond the current encroachment of where the porch is, need to create a family room adjacent to the kitchen, at the north they not exceeding existing encroachment, it is a complex lot, east and west walls are consistent so roof lines are not disturbed.
Mr. Bernstein stated regarding the standards for reasonable return this is an existing non conforming house, 90 years old and in significant need of updating in order to bring it up to a modern lifestyle, no mechanism to preserve historical homes rated S, large home with a one-car garage, unsustainable tandem bedrooms on the second floor, without updating the home would be a candidate for the tear down, changes are modest, will create value, they hope to get variance so they can purchase home, hardship is unique shaped lot, already encroaches, unique physical surroundings, house is already existing non-conforming, hardship was not created by applicant, house was sited over 90 years ago, will not alter essential character of neighborhood, no impact on neighborhood, support from neighbors, meets standards.
Chair Henry asked if they had considered other ways and what they were.
Mr. Lew stated the diagram shows how they overlaid the front setbacks on the east and north, they tried to work within setback and shifted the family room to south and it would end up shifting it over and geometrically it would not work with the original home and took away from the architecture. There was no practical way to run an addition and stay within the setback anywhere that was worthwhile. The variance is required since most of the home is encroaching. They took the wall line and connected it from the existing addition to the east wall. If they angled it back it would not warrant a reasonable addition and aesthetically it would be very detracting.
Member Cullather asked the size of the original garage.
Mr. Lew stated the original garage is 17’5” in width and they are adding 5’ for 22’5”.
Mr. Adam Natenshon, 433 Ashland, stated he was very enthusiastic and supports the variance which is very reasonable, he moved into their house in 2010 and their house was built in 1928, and they invested significant time to update it, it required variation,
block has historic homes, fortunate to have them as neighbors, supports the request, were thrilled that they were sensitive preservation plan, if lot was purchased by a developer it would be a different conversation, have kept side yard open, design will be improvement, will not obstruct use of their property, retains original character of home.
Ms. Jennifer Schultz, 385 Oakland, stated she lives across the street and supports the variance and likes the plans. From their view the only thing visible is the garage. Their sons are in remote learning together and they are part of the neighborhood.
Mr. Dan Schram, 425 Oakland, stated his daughter plays with their son and they live directly across the street, a tear down is possible when you look at the other tear downs, this is an effort to stay in the community as well as to preserve the historical integrity, he supported the variance, commended the design and was impressed.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if there had been other variances for this property. Planner Burhop stated he had checked and there were none.
Mr. Jeff Thomas and Katie McCabe, Applicants, stated it was a good presentation. They moved from the city and were looking for their forever home. They kept coming back to this house and have fallen in love with the neighbors and neighborhood. They are many
attributes such as Ravinia, Rosewood Beach and the food trucks and the community at large. They have three kids and the house is not suitable for family of five with the tandem bedrooms. They are modest and reasonable changes and are trying to respect the FAR. The house is already non-conforming and they are trying to find a reasonable addition that will work for this addition for a modern family.
Member Zaransky stated he supported the variances and it was a reasonable request and meets the standards.
Member Hendrick agreed and thanked Mr. Bernstein and the neighbors for their input. He thought it met the standards and had the support of the neighbors.
Member Bay stated he lived in Braeside and supported the application and it is a no brainer. He commended the presentation and support from the neighbors.
Member Putzel stated she did not have much to add and supported the application. It is an unusual lot shape and there was a lot of thought put into it. She appreciated the insight everyone shared in the presentation as well as the support from the neighbors.
Member Henry stated the presentation was well done and the fact that the neighbors support it is very compelling. It is an odd shaped lot with two front yards which presents issues. Significantly it does exceed the FAR and it is primarily non-conforming. He thought it was a reasonable request and was in favor of the application.
Vice Chair Cullather thanked everyone for their presentations and they explained some questions he had. It is an odd shaped with difficult setback requirements. It would have be difficult to do anything to the house without changing the layout and it will be much more functional. He agreed it met the requirements for a variance.
Chair Chaplik agreed and thought it met the standards. The lot is the pie house lot in Deerfield and it is important they are not exceeding the FAR and making small additions and changes and not increasing the bulk.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Member Hendrick so motioned to adopt the order as drafted, seconded by Vice Chair Cullather.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed: 7-0.
Councilwoman Holleman stated she welcomed the applicants and appreciated the good work they are doing. They appreciate the investment in older homes.
2. #20-11-VAR-021
Property: 1145-1149 Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IL
Zoning District: R4 and Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone
Appellant: Joshua C. Silvers & Kathryn E. Silvers
Address: 1145 Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IL
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, plat of survey, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Chair Chaplik asked if the remainder of the fence behind house is a matter of right. Planner Burhop stated yes they can do 6’ as a matter of right.
Vice Chair Cullather asked even though there was a 6’ fence there was not a variation for the original fence.
Planner Burhop stated there were no fence height variations.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated this is a different sets of standards than normal, the fence is nearing the end of its useful life and if it was blown down it could be replaced as a matter of right.
Planner Burhop stated if it is destroyed by any act not in the control of the owner they have the right to replace it.
Mr. Bernstein stated the existing fence has outlived its useful life and instead of waiting for a wind the applicant decided to more forward and replace the existing 6’ fence with a nicer 6’ fence. The Synagogue grated permission so they can move forward. It is a simple application. The first standard refers to a favorable environment of the city and will be compatible with the existing structures, the 6’ fence already exists and it is being replaced with one of higher quality, there is a very intensive use to the north that is the access point and parking for the synagogue, it will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, it will not cause depreciation in property values. There is an extensive amount of landscaping along Sheridan Rd. and it will not been seen from Sheridan Rd. The only place you can see it is from the parking lot at Beth El.
Member Bay stated it will be nicer looking and asked if it would it be similar to the existing fence.
Mr. Bernstein stated Planner Burhop had shown the photos and it will be board on board.
Member Zaransky stated it is a very straight forward application and it met the standards. He would support the application.
Member Hendrick agreed and stated the quality is better and would support the application.
Member Bay stated you would be hard pressed to say it did not meet the standards and he would support the application.
Member Putzel stated she supported the application, it was straight forward and agreed with the other members.
Member Henry agreed.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed.
Chair Chaplik stated he supported the application and it met the standards for a variance.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned to approve the draft order as submitted, 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.
3. #20-11-VAR-022
Property: 268 Barberry Road, Highland Park, IL
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: David & Jody Melinger
Address: 268 Barberry Road, Highland Park, IL
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan, proposed and existing west and north elevations, photos, floor area analysis, neighborhood floor area analysis, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay referred to the FAR chart and stated it appeared the house would be a bigger house on a smaller lot.
Planner Burhop confirmed this.
Member Bay stated it looked as though a lot of the houses that have a lower FAR are on larger lots over 10,000 s.f.
Planner Burhop stated on the west side of block the lots were more like the subject property and on the east side all the properties are several thousand feet bigger. All the properties on the east side are larger.
Member Henry asked if the proposed addition exceeds the footprint of the deck.
Planner Burhop stated according to the site plan it is possible it exceeds the existing footprint.
Vice Chair Cullather mentioned the chart with the FARs and he thought it was the west side of Barberry. He asked why the Sumac was on it.
Planner Burhop stated when someone submits floor area relief in the packet there is a document they can fill out with neighborhood floor areas. Staff is only going to submit floor areas for the immediate block. He tells them if there are numbers that are really close they can submit them to the Board.
Vice Chair Cullather stated if they look at Barberry this house would have the highest FAR at 41.4%.
Mr. Dave Melinger, Owner, stated they are dealing with a hardship related to Covid and changes that have happened that have changed the dynamics of how they live and work. Everyone is home all day. He converted the den into an office which has sacrificed living area on the first floor. The space they are proposing is intended for e-learning and a study area. They want to have doors because he needs a quiet place to work. It is basically putting a roof over a portion of the deck. It is not going further out than the deck. It will provide a change of setting for everyone and place to go for a change of scenery. When the space is not being used for e-learning having covered space with open air flow would make for a nicer experience for older friends with more comfort and safety.
Chair Chaplik stated he would like to hear how it meets the standards.
Member Henry asked how a three-season room, as we enter the winter months, will solve the problems stated.
Mr. Melinger stated they could supplement it with some heat and insulation on the floor. If they had windows it would allow the room to extend further into seasons. It may not cover the peak of winter, but would give as much usage as possible throughout the season.
Member Hendrick asked about the reasonable return and hardship. The standard states it is an unusual hardship not applicable to other properties in the same district. They have one of larger houses in area and what makes their situation unusual.
Ms. Melinger stated they have deck they used in the summer and thought it would be better to enclose it and use it part of the year. The layout of the house is not as much as space as it may look like with teenagers. You are allowed to stick with your pod of friends and there is no where to go. With teenagers they can get that use of space and it would be better.
Mr. Melinger stated they do not get a lot of use out of the basement and there is a temperature difference and he cannot put his office in the basement. The best place to have his office it is where it is and the kids have to be comfortable. More people are spending time inside and it makes things are tight. Having more room will be better for their mental health.
Member Hendrick asked about temperature control in the basement.
Ms. Melinger stated there are no windows in the basement. Her daughter and friends can sit in the room and open the windows. It is better to have a room with windows for air flow. They are just trying to enclose the deck.
Member Putzel asked if Councilwoman was still on the call. She stated they had talked about this at the beginning of quarantine and had another applicant come in. His explanation for things was due to Covid. She had great sympathy for that, but it does not fall under their jurisdiction. They have specific zoning standards that have to be met. They asked Council for standards related to Covid and they have yet to receive them. She did not think it was in their purview to be discussing this if the hardship is the current situation of the world.
Chair Chaplik thought she had hit their thoughts on the head and here was nothing unreasonable about what she was asking for. Their questions are trying to find some way to fit this within the standards they have to apply which do not address Covid. They have a narrow set of circumstances they have to find related to their property in order to consider the application.
Member Bay stated he remembered the application was for a home office and may have been an encroachment matter as opposed to an FAR matter. They did grant the variance and at the time acknowledged the fact that they have to apply the standards in the world as it currently exists. They thought it was good idea to have guidance from Council which
they have not done. The reality is there is a hardship as a result of existing condition in the world. He thought that qualifies as a very real hardship.
Member Hendrick stated he agreed there was a hardship but it had to be an unusual hardship.
Member Bay stated it is unusual in the sense it does not apply to other similarly situated houses. The reality is are you going to have to move to escape the hardship.
Member Zaransky asked what the difference is between a three-season room vs. a home office.
Ms. Sue Auerbach, Architect, made a presentation including Covid will be changing the way we work forever, the applicant has learned how to work from home and probably will not be going to go to the office as much, the den has become an office on a more permanent basis, are the kids going to college or will it be on Zoom, these things have the potential for change because of what has occurred, they realized needed an extra room for more space and needed a room for possible entertainment in a safe environment which means more air flow, this started as a screened porch and they realized and they need it to function more and it became a three-season room, there is no difference between a three and four-season room, it more the fact that it is surrounded by windows with the goal being to allow fresh air in and make it as much of an outdoor space as possible, the hardship is Covid and is it unusual for this district, it is more about the times and Covid and how people have bought homes expecting to live a certain way, the unique circumstance is Covid and social distancing, the physical surroundings are not applicable because that is not the hardship, the proposed variation will not be detrimental to the public and it is a one-story addition in the rear and changes nothing, it does not change the feeling that your neighbor has a bigger house, it is about same size as the porch and covers the same amount of land, the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light, will not alter the character of the neighborhood and it is hard to see, it fits in with the house and is in harmony with the zoning code.
Chair Chaplik stated they have to find for the first three standards and one is can the property yield a reasonable return if used as is. He asked how it meets that standard and regarding the second and third what is it about this property that is a hardship and is non applicable to rest of the zoning district in general. How does this property have a hardship that is different than others. They have a lot of people with the same situation but they have to find hardship with respect to this particular property and not the homeowner’s personal plight.
Ms. Auerbach stated the air flow is not as great and they have less defined spaces for working. It all has to do with Covid. They do not have space or air flow or the ability to live in in the current situation in this home on this property.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they were coming for a screened in porch would that require a variation.
Planner Burhop stated yes if it is a roof structure that is enclosed that counts against the floor area.
Vice Chair Cullather stated regardless if it is a screened-in porch, a three-season porch or an all year round structure it is meeting the same standards.
Member Zaransky stated he was torn and wanted to hear what the others members had to say. He understood their request, but they have to meet the standards.
Member Hendrick stated he voted no on the prior case and felt he was stuck with the standards and felt he was stuck with them now. Even if he said Covid was uniquely individual to this property he did not know how the property cannot yield a reasonable return. He thought the arguments that they are going to enclosed it detract from it. He thought the request was reasonable, but they do not have a deminimus standard and he would vote no.
Member Bay stated he would be massaging the standards for the variation to attempt to reach a just conclusion. Regarding the reasonable return, he thought it was unreasonable to say they could just sell the house and move during the time of a pandemic. Should they be penalized because they have a bigger house on a smaller lot. Reading the hardship standards as they are written it is not that much of a stretch to say the unique circumstance is Covid and is not merely a convenience but will relieve a hardship which is not applicable to other properties. If you read the standard as a whole the strict interpretation of this is due to unique circumstances and he thought it met that part. He thought it met the part about convenience and demonstrable hardship. The only part it does not meet is generally applicable to other properties. It is more specific to this property due to the size of the lot. He was stretching this and most of the other members would say he was a strict interpreter when it comes to the standards but he thought they needed to grant a little more leeway and err on the side of being compassionate in the time of Covid. Even though there is no deminimus standard this is a relatively deminimus request relative to how their lot size is smaller relative to some of the other houses. He would support the request.
Member Putzel stated she wanted to say yes and was frustrated that Council liaison was not on the call because this was a discussion they had regarding Covid. They have not received an outline with Covid outlines. If she went by the zoning regulations she did not think it met the first two standards. From a compassionate standpoint she wanted to say yes but did not think it was there.
Member Henry stated he was struggling but not as much as Member Bay. The property currently is at 34.15 and exceeds the FAR. The memo shows 32 properties in the area and there are only six properties that have more floor area that this property. The floor area of this property as it currently exists in all but six out of the 32 properties. When Ms. Auerbach talked about them being stuffed into the property he had a tough time with that. He was sympathetic to the applicants and the pandemic has had on impact on everyone. They have to apply the standards and he did not feel the application met them.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he wanted to be able to approve the application. When they talk about the FAR they are talking about the bulk. Because of where the addition is situated it does not increasing the bulk on the street. He agreed with Member Henry and if it were a bigger lot they would not be in this situation and if the existing house were smaller would not be in this situation. The house is one of the largest in the neighborhood on a lot that is on the smaller side. It does not affect the neighborhood and does not add bulk. He could see that there is a reason for it and he had trouble overcoming the required standards. He would not support the application.
Chair Chaplik thought this is the type of case cries out for legislative help from Council if they chose to do so. To put it in the hands of the Board who have specific standards, this is the type of situation they were taught when they had their training. This is the type of case applicable to a lot of people. He felt for the applicant. If this were the smallest house on the block they might find a way to see the home itself was the hardship. He wished Councilwoman Holleman was present and they have asked her to take this up with Council and they have not heard anything. He was frustrated they do not have the tools to address this type of application. Under the current requirements he could not approve the application.
Member Bay stated he would remind the applicant they can revise the request to make some changes to make it conform to the standards in eyes of the rest of the Board. They had the right to ask for a continuance.
Member Zaransky stated he was rooting for the application and hoping someone would come up with an interpretation. Without a real application of the standards he did not see how they could pass his.
Vice Chair Cullather stated when they say go back and rethink it they do not necessarily mean they have to redo the drawings. He thought they needed to go back and rethink the justifications for meeting the requirements. They did not present a legal argument as to how the standards are met.
Chair Chaplik stated they can rethink the plans as well if they request a continuance.
Member Bay stated they could try and get the attention of Council and ask for some intervention.
Chair Chaplik stated this is a challenge for the Board and they could see a flood of similar requests coming in and they do not have the tools for dealing with Covid requests that are otherwise challenging under the current requirements for a variance. He asked the applicant if they wanted a continuance.
Mr. Melinger stated he would like a continuance.
Chair Chaplik asked for a motion for a continuance. Member Bay so motioned and asked about the schedule.
Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is November 19th and recommended it be continued to that specific date. That way no additional notice has to occur.
Member Bay stated he would ask the applicant how much time he needed and continue to that date.
Member Putzel asked the date of the next Council meeting.
Planner Burhop stated it was November 9th.
Member Putzel stated that may not give them enough time.
Planner Burhop stated in terms of getting in front of Council there is not a route for them to go in terms of an application. They may have a Business From the Public section and could consider it either on November 9th or the next meeting. But there is not an application process for the applicants to go to Council – this is a ZBA-authorized consideration.
Member Putzel stated someone from Council needs to see this.
Chair Chaplik stated it might best to get on the calendar for the next meeting. They can call Councilwoman Holleman who is the liaison to the Board and talk to her and get her thoughts.
Member Hendrick stated they are very responsive and they could reach out to the Mayor.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he had the agenda and there is a Business from the Public for November 9th.
Member Henry stated Council always has a Business from the Public for items not on the agenda.
Vice Chair Cullather stated they could contact the City Manager to let them know they wanted to talk.
Chair Henry stated they had heard what they are struggling with in regard to the standards that Council gives to the Board to apply. They cannot give advice, but if there is some way they can look at the application and their needs and the standards and try to fit a square peg into a round hole that may be helpful to the application.
Mr. Melinger asked if the next step was a continuation to November 19th. Member Henry stated they could continue to November 19th or December 3rd. Mr. Melinger stated they wanted to continue to November 19th.
Member Bay stated if they need to continue it then there may be other notice required.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to continue. Member Bay so motioned to continue to November 19th, seconded by Member Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
Chair Chaplik stated the Motion passed 7-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there will be the previous item on the agenda and two new applications and there may be a Compere referral for the November 19th meeting.
There are no applications for the December 3rd meeting yet and the window for that date was closing fact. The next meeting is January 7th.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Member Hendrick asked about the Council meeting and if he could attend and ask for standards for Covid.
Member Henry stated he could participate as an individual but not as an individual of the Board. As sympathetic as they are to applications like the last, Covid will end some time but the variance does not.
Member Hendrick stated he felt like if there is a historical part there is not anything that deals with historical houses and felt the standards should be updated.
Chair Chaplik stated he had dealt with zoning variances in other communities and some of them have a reasonableness standard. Highland Park has pretty strict standards.
Member Hendrick stated if that is what Council wants he will follow it.
Chair Chaplik stated if all of the sudden there is special relief granted they could see a flood of applications for home office additions.
Vice Chair Cullather stated Member Hendrick can attend a Council meeting and speak on behalf of himself. He should confer with Planner Burhop is make sure other members are attending.
Planner Burhop stated he would prefer this as a courtesy that Board membres contact staff if they want to go to a Council or PDC meeting, as staff monitors to make sure there aren’t accidental quorums, which could violate the Open Meetings Act.
Chair Chaplik stated it is a public meeting.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Henry.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:02 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2441&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up