City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Aug. 5.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Members Absent: Bay
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Tapia
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 15, 2021
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the July 15, 2021 meeting. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.
Chair Cullather stated he had watched the video of the July 15, 2021 meeting. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 7-21-21
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #2021-VAR-025
Property: 1107 Golf Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Mateusz Stochelski & Janice Lee
Address: 1107 Golf Ave, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation including site location, project background, aerial view, photos, survey, site plan, EBS review, elevations, sketch plan, other comments and requested relief.
Vice Chair Putzel asked to see the slide where the building is already encroaching. Planner Burhop stated part of it encroaches in the established building setback.
Chair Cullather asked to see the setback slide with the comparison to the neighbors. He asked if they would be at 22.93’.
Planner Burhop stated it would be 22.33'
Chair Cullather asked if it would be the closest.
Planner Burhop stated yes, based on the GIS.
Mr. Stochelski, Applicant, stated they are adding a garage because the existing one is very small and the current one is 16'. They are proposing to add a standard one-car garage in tandem for 22’. They have two cars and would like to have it for the winter and be able to store the snow blower. They want to renovate the facade and tie the house together. The house was built in 1953 and is looking its age. They want to maintain the look of the street.
Chair Cullather asked about the standards.
Mr. Stochelski stated the property cannot yield a reasonable return, they are not planning to sell, is primary residence, if they went to 25' building line the garage would be 20' they have small original garage, want to store yard equipment in garage, the way to house is set they already encroaching and cannot widen the garage, this is only space that makes sense, reason is in the winter they can have two cars in the garage, not just for cars, hardship has not been created by them, not going to sell, will not be materially detrimental to neighborhood, no trees will be removed, will not be noticeable to neighbor, will not look different than other homes, will not impair light or air, property to west has tall hedges, no impact on street, will not endanger public safety, ingress and egress will not be impacted, not adding square footage to home, house will still have significant setback, is in harmony with the neighborhood.
Vice Chair Putzel asked the porch and the hardship.
Mr. Stochelski stated the porch is the entrance to the home and it labeled as porch but it is an elevated step with the entrance setback a little.
Planner Burhop stated it is open structure with a roof above it. That only needs relief to the subdivision building line.
Vice Chair Putzel asked if it was an outdoor covered area.
Mr. Stochelski stated the door is inset which leads to the foyer.
Chair Cullather stated it provides a covered entrance.
Mr. Stochelski confirmed this.
Mr. Rick Wolfe , 1106 Golf Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, stated he lives across the street and is in favor of application. He has lived on Golf for 45 years and the block has transformed over the years. The front of house is unremarkable and the changes will be dramatic. It is the least obtrusive way of getting a two-car garage. The porch comports with the rest of the remodeling and when you look at the street there are one or two houses on that side that haven not been torn down and replaced with a larger home. He has seen the plans and drawings and was in favor of the application.
Member Yablon stated it is reasonable request and well put together. She was not sure there was a hardship vs. inconvenience especially when it came to the snow equipment.
Member Beck stated the hardship exists and a two-car garage is standard in the City. He thought it met the standards and was in favor of the application.
Member Hendrick stated he would vote in favor and thought the standards had been met. The have set a precedent for the garage and a two-car garage is a standard and he had done a good job of trying to minimize the impact. The hardship is the easement and he was struggling with the porch, but it was based off the easement and the subdivision line is antiquated.
Member Zaransky stated it met the standards and the two-car garage is standard even though the home will be the closest to the street. He was in favor of the application.
Vice Chair Putzel stated she was in favor and agreed with the other members. It will protect the entrance and the water will not come in. She thought it met the standards and was in favor of the application.
Chair Cullather stated he agreed with the other members and they met the standards. The only way to put the garage on the property is to have a tandem garage.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adopt the order as presented in the packet. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Zaransky.
Burhop called roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
2. #2021-VAR-026
Property: 251 Sumac Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Norbert & Audrea King
Address: 251 Sumac Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation including site location, project background, aerial view, photos, survey, other comments and requested relief.
Member Hendrick asked regarding the canopy, what can a homeowner do in terms of pruning a tree. He asked if they can alter the tree without permission.
Planner Burhop stated he could not answer that and if the answer is critical to their determination they could continue with the question going to the City Forester.
Mr. Norbert King, Applicant, stated the tree hangs over the house and there is a letter from an engineer in the packet which states the tree is causing structural issues and damaging the foundation. There is no alternate to stem that other than to remove the tree. The roots are encircling the foundation and moving the soil. He thought they met the standards. The City Forester had proposed alternative ways one of which was to shore up the foundation without removal of the tree. He has had this discussion and a solution is to drive six piers into the ground to bedrock and to do that would sever the roots. He discussed this with the arborist and if you sever the roots you compromise the integrity of the tree you would be at risk of the tree falling on the house. Another proposed solution is to demolish the garage and extend the driveway into the back yard and rebuild. The back yard is not large and it would take up about a third of the yard, not to mention the cost. If they demolish the garage they have to dig up the concrete floor and repave which would still be in proximity to the tree. The tree is also causing upheaval of the neighbor’s driveway. Regarding the findings, it will not alter the character of the neighborhood, and there is plenty of canopy coverage from neighboring trees. The removal will not be detrimental to enjoyment of the property and will help improve the value. If they cannot shore up the foundation they cannot enjoy use of the structure and the brick is cracking and pieces are falling off. The garage door is uneven and is causing issues. It will not impair air and light, will improve property values and there are no practical alternates. Letting the tree continue to damage the property is an undue hardship and moving the garage to the back yard is not realistic. Removal of the tree is necessary for reasonable use of the property. It is at a 30º angle and something drastic could happen, it is hanging over the house. They have not created the hardship and they are trying to address the problem and are not asking for special privilege. It is too close to the house and they have talked with arborists who said trees this size should be no closer than 12’-15'. The tree is causing damage which cannot be corrected without removal of the tree.
Member Beck stated it is a beautiful tree, but in a bad spot. His preference would be to replace the tree rather pay than whatever the City assesses. He was in favor of the application.
Member Zaransky agreed and stated it had to go and was causing a lot of issues. Regarding the replacement, the City’s ordinance is pretty onerous and they would end up replacing three to four trees to not pay a fee which would cause overcrowding. He was in favor of making the property safer.
Member Hendrick stated he supported the application and it met the standards. There was significant research and detail into looking at the problem.
Member Yablon stated she agreed and thought it was an excellent presentation.
Vice Chair Putzel stated she would support the application and the applicant did a thorough job in the presentation.
Chair Cullather agreed and stated Highland Park values its heritage trees and are the protectors of the trees. He thought the standards had been met. If the lot was empty they would not have approved the structure to be built on that spot. The house is already there and they are tying to preventative maintenance to insure damage is not done to the structure.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Beck motioned to approve the draft order as written, seconded by Member Yablon.
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
3. #2021-VAR-027
Property: 1474 Deerfield Pl., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: Laurance Martin
Address: 1474 Deerfield Pl., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation including site location, project background, aerial view, photos, survey, site plan, rendering, elevation plans, other comments and requested relief.
Chair Cullather asked about it being an undersized property.
Planner Burhop stated it is in the R5 district and the standard setback is 40' and there is a section in the code that states if you are an undersized property and under width you get a 10% reduction on the front, side and rear setbacks.
Mr. Laurance Martin, Applicant, stated he bought the house last year and has made many improvements, has redone the siding, new roof, new shutters, planted 14 new trees, new landscaping, planning to live there the rest of his life, aesthetically it would look nice to have architectural feature on front, surrounding properties all have as well, cannot yield reasonable return, not in it to make money, this is not a convenience, other properties have a shelter above front door, will protect from rain, neighbors have one, creates hardship by not having convenience of shelter over door, did not create hardship, will not be detrimental to public welfare, is within essential character of neighborhood, is within the spirit of the code, code was not intended not to permit covered entries.
Vice Chair Putzel stated it met the standards and she saw the hardship as a slight irregularity to the shape of the lot. If the street was parallel to the front this would not be an issue. They already have a stoop and are just adding some coverage. It is not unreasonable ask for a protected entryway and prevent damage from water or snow. She would support the application.
Member Zaransky stated he agreed.
Member Beck stated he agreed.
Member Hendrick agreed and stated it was non-conforming already and the intent of Council would appear to have captured the spirit of this kind of project. He supported the application.
Member Yablon agreed and was in favor of the application.
Chair Cullather stated and it captures the spirit of the zoning code. It is not a big ask for a covered portico. He was in favor of the application.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Vice Chair Putzel motioned to adopt the variance as drafted, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Burhop called roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
4. #2021-VAR-028
Property: 12 Roger Williams, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone
Appellant: Elizabeth Benjamin Fox Revocable Trust & Corey D. Fox Revocable Trust Address: 480 Clavey Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop stated the applicant’s attorney had requested a continuance to the August 19 ZBA meeting. Staff did not object.
Chair Cullather asked if there was motion to continue this item to August 19, 2021. Member Hendrick so motioned, second by Vice Chair Putzel.
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
Planner Burhop announced to everyone in attendance this application had been continued to the August 19 ZBA meeting.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
The next meeting is August 19, 2021.
Planner Burhop stated there had been discussion about the School District application for the temporary trailers. He followed up with Joel Fontane, Director, and he concurred there is a provision in the code in Article 4 that allows temporary buildings or trailers that are used in connection with construction work and may be permitted in the zoning district during the period of construction. This provision for temporary buildings or trailers is intended for onsite construction related offices, break rooms, etc. accessory to the construction at the site itself. These buildings or trailers are allowed anywhere on the construction site. The school’s temporary offices and classrooms may be indirectly related to the construction project and may be placed elsewhere, but are not used with the actual construction nor are they located at the construction site itself.
VIII MISCELLANEOUS:
Adoption of the FY2022 ZBA Work Plan
Planner Burhop stated the work plan generally stays the same year to year. There are three areas of monies and one has to do with contracting services, legal advertisements and signs or name plates. The budget is essentially the same as the year before.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
Councilman Tapia stated the items tonight were consistent with the eight standards. He asked if this was always the case.
Chair Cullather stated sometimes they the applicants volunteer as part of the presentation and there is no the need to ask them.
Vice Chair Putzel stated it was often in the packet.
Councilman Tapia stated if it is in the packet they may not ask.
Chair Cullather stated they may want it spoken if there is anyone in the room or virtually. It is up to the applicant to make the case they have met the standards.
Councilman Tapia stated sometimes it is in writing and in others it is not as clear.
Chair Cullather stated sometimes the architect or lawyer will walk through the process without being asked.
Councilman Tapia stated it was not necessary to ask them to walk through it. Vice Chair Putzel stated every case is different.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.
On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously and meeting adjourned.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:52 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2561&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up