City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 3.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:33 PM Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather Members
Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Later (physically at City Hall), Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Tapia
Counsel: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 20, 2021
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the May 20, 2021 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick. Member Yablon stated she had been absent this meeting and would abstain.
Planner Later called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
Abstain: Yablon
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 5-19-21
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #2021-VAR-019
Property: 770 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront
Appellant: Debra Nesselson Cohen Revocable Trust U/A/D
Address: 770 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, photo, survey, site plan, proposed screened porch, rendering, elevation plans, EBS review, other comments and requested relief.
Mr. Gary Cohen, 770 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035, Applicant, stated this was a modest rear yard variance for a small screened porch, have been Highland Park residents for four years and have lived on the North Shore for 37 years, Mrs. Cohen has been a rabbi 20 years, have strong nexus with Highland Park, are motivated by health issues within the family, have limited space because of how house is situated, irregular angles on lot, addressed other options before final solution which is the least intrusive.
Mr. Daniel Lesus, 1033 Holly Circle, Lake Zurich, IL, Architect, made a presentation including page 21 in the packet which shows the floor plan, design goals, contracted to look into project biggest goal was to expand on current outdoor living space, have on grade patio, looking for a screened porch in back yard, want to extend entertaining area into a protected structure allowing for more use outside, laid out site plan with all required setbacks to create building footprint, realized that back rear yard setback of 35’ would impose concern to anything designed, lot is a unique shape and house is set so far back from property line there is limited back yard space, goal is one-story 16’L x 13’W, 208 s.f., is a small addition and falls within FAR, want to be close enough to existing patio to allow for entertainment purposes and easy access to house, only access to back yard is out of family room, any other location would require relief, chose this because it offers extension of existing patio, does not take away ventilation or light, trying to be considerate of nearby house, this is the farthest they can be from neighboring house so as not to block light, ventilation or encroach on own space, north of property as only other location they could potentially build, north part of house is primary bedroom suite and if they located to the north there are a lot of mature trees and it is a natural wildlife area, would require them to remove protected trees and the location is too far from existing patio, this is a modest screened porch off back of house, the property cannot yield reasonable return, looking to improve existing home for personal use, there are much larger homes in area and properties, due to lot configuration it is a hardship requiring relief, hardship is due to unique circumstance, dealing with larger home which allows for larger FAR with addition they are at 5153 s.f. which is within FAR, it is a unique shaped lot, property line is not parallel to front yard and have diagonal setback, physical surroundings and lot shape result in hardship, existing residence is pushed to back, hardship not created by owner, many lots have unique shape, variation will not be detrimental to public welfare, will not impair light and air, will not alter character of neighborhood, trying to mimic existing architecture, is in harmony with the sprit and intent of zoning code.
Vice Chair Putzel stated it was a very thorough presentation, it is a nominal ask and the hardship is clear with the odd shaped lot. She thought it met the standards and would support it.
Member Bay agreed with Vice Chair Putzel and thought it met the standards and would support it.
Member Hendrick agreed and thanked the team for the presentation and packet. He had nothing to add and thought the standards had been met and appreciated the information about the other options.
Member Zaransky agreed and had nothing to add.
Member Yablon stated it was an excellent presentation and the standards have been met and it was a reasonable request.
Member Beck stated he had nothing to add and would support the application.
Chair Cullather stated he concurred with the other members and it was a well presented response to the standards. The explanation of the location was very helpful.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order as presented in the packet, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
2. #2021-VAR-020
Property: 970 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4
Appellant: Anthony Gonka
Address: 1309 Shagbark Dr., Des Plaines, IL 60018
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, SSZ exhibit, photos, survey, site plan, existing plan, elevation plans, FAR review, other comments and requested relief.
Member Hendrick asked about the policy rationale for not allowing the bonus allowance.
Planner Burhop stated the bonus FAR policy was adopted 2004-2006 and meant to be more of a carrot approach in return for not being able to demolish the home for 20 years thereafter. He thought it was a constraint to limit encroachment in the setback.
Member Zaransky asked if the lot was not a flag lot would there be impact on the relief.
Planner Burhop stated they will have side yards on the north and south and they would be allowed a minimum side yard of 12’ which they would meet on the north. They would still need relief for a 40’ setback from the east but the relief request would be less. The setback relief would hypothetically be there and no side yard setback relief and the front yard relief would be a little less and the FAR relief would be the same.
Member Zaransky asked if it would just be a FAR request.
Planner Burhop stated it would eliminate side yard relief and reduce the front yard relief and the FAR would stay the same.
Chair Cullather asked when calculating the FAR, is the flagpole included. Planner Burhop stated yes for the FAR.
Mr. Anthony Gonka, 970 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL, Applicant stated he grew up in Park Ridge and chose Highland Park because they love the architecture and diversity, house needs substantial renovation, is nationally registered, they going through necessary steps with the state of Illinois to preserve the property.
Ms. Alison Von Glinow, 1326 W. Ardmore, Chicago, IL, Architect, stated the property is a lot-in-depth, 208’ from Sheridan Rd. and is not visible from Sheridan Rd., current building encroaches within the side yard to the north and front yard to the east setback, plat survey from 1950s, split up and subdivided into several parcels, there was a brick and plaster garage at front 60’L x 30’D, had exterior paved lot, in 1962 cabana was added as a separate structure accessed through the outdoors, in 1982 plans for there-car enclosed addition, existing conditions, they are squaring off the corner, not extending to open air space, existing conditions of site and how they are encroaching 3’-8” into front yard setback, existing cabana encroaches into north side yard setback, taking line of current garage and extending north, taking building enclosure line of cabana to east, squaring off corner to create enclosure for garage, coming in 9’-4” from north and 3’-1” from the east, cabana does not have enclosed connection to home, important to have enclosed indoor connection between cabana and be able to access home, foyer was created to connect between existing home and cabana, want to create four-car garage, adding additional floor area in order to create closed access to cabana, want to extend one bay, outdoor area will be enclosed, proposed elevations, garage is 17’, there is no lack of light or air, existing condition of garage, foyer is same height as existing connector piece, has been preliminarily approved by state of Illinois.
Mr. Gonka stated the first floor is made of three historic rooms and kitchen, no first floor bedroom or casual living space, this is why they are seeking to have indoor connection, will use as potential in-law suite, additional indoor parking to keep cars off driveway, property cannot yield reasonable return and the existing garage is ugly, lot is configured in a strange way and this is the only logical area to create four-car garage, original garage was six-car, two houses across street on Sheridan Rd. both have four-car garages, they did not create hardship, there is nothing they can do to knock down the structure and rebuild and not be in violation of the setback laws, house was built prior to current zoning laws, it is a lot-in-depth property which is a unique circumstance, will not be detrimental to pubic welfare, it is an eyesore and they are making it nicer, is a landmark property, does not change air or light, does not change essential character of neighborhood, variation is in harmony with zoning code, house is 106 years old and they are doing best they can, only asking for what is necessary to achieve design.
Ms. Caitlin Gonka stated she appreciated the presentation.
Mr. Herb Natkin, Neighbor, stated he supported the project.
Member Bay stated when he first looked at the application he wondered how a house that is already 12,000 s.f. need FAR relief and made bigger. Considering the circumstances the letter written by Mr. Gonka was very informative and explained why they need to do this. He shared Member Hendrick’s wondering why the house would be eligible the FAR bonus if it did not require setback relief. He thought they had met the standards and would support the variation.
Member Zaransky stated the letter was well written and laid it out. He thought the standards had been met.
Member Yablon agreed and thought it was an excellent presentation and the standards had been met.
Member Beck stated when you look at the hardship created by the lot-in-depth setbacks he thought they could grant the variation based on that. They are left with the FAR relief which they would be eligible for the bonus. It is a minimal ask and a great project and he would be in favor of it.
Member Hendrick agreed and thought Member Beck’s line of thinking was how he was looking at it. When it came to the reasonable return standard he was not persuaded the property needs a four- or six-car garage. He thought the standard has been met because of the conditions and everything else going on with the property and how it meets conditions under the national registry with the state. He thought the standards had been met.
Vice Chair Putzel agreed and was thinking about the garage, but after hearing it was larger prior to this she was persuaded and would support the variance.
Chair Cullather agreed and referred to Member Bay’s comment about a 12,000 s.f. house and the FAR requirement. He agreed with Member Hendrick and Vice Chair Putzel and they have made the argument. They have tried not to set a precedent that three-, four- or five-car garages are a requirement. On property this size it met the requirements.
Councilman Tapia stated he appreciated the quality of the presentations and the consideration by the ZBA.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Bay so motioned to adopt the approval order as written, seconded by Member Yablon.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed 7-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there are two items for the next meeting on June 17th, Bob O’Link and one new application. There may be an update on the meetings going forward.
Planner Later stated if the Governor does not extend the emergency order all boards and commissions will be meeting in person in July. It would come from the Mayor’s and City Manager’s office.
Councilman Tapia stated he found the Mayor and City Manager open to their case and a little reinforcement as helpful for the conversations.
Chair Cullather thanked staff and appreciated their time and effort.
Member Hendrick asked if there was talk about having a hybrid allowance for virtual attendance or will it go back to the way it was.
Planner Later stated Counsel has advised that there some movement to amend the Open Meetings Act allow Zoom meetings and the reason they go back is through the Open Meetings Act. That could be amended to allow Zoom meetings. She thought it encourages more participation and more people attend because it is easier.
Chair Cullather stated the Legislation just adjourned for summer.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Zaransky.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:10 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2534&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up