Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 2.

I. CALL TO ORDER

At 7:30 PM Vice Chair Putzel called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.

Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Members Absent: Cullather, Hendrick

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: Tapia

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

August 19, 2021

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the August 19, 2021 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 8-18-21

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. OLD BUSINESS:

1. #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 made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, steep slope zone (SSZ), photos, survey, yard requirements – zoning analysis, lake orientation exhibit, forestry review, site plan A – July 28th, site plan A – Sept. 2nd, other comments, neighbor input and requested relief.

Member Beck asked if the pool required relief from the SSZ.

Planner Burhop stated the pool met the 40’ setback.

Member Bay asked if there was a new site plan submitted today and if the applicant is withdrawing first site plan in favor of the new site plan submitted today.

Planner Burhop stated yes and the applicant can respond. The Forester provided comments last night.

Member Bay asked if the Forester provided his response to the new site plan.

Planner Burhop stated the Forester’s memo is for the original items included in the packet.

Member Bay asked if the applicant had amended their request for relief to reflect the new site plan being their intended plan or is it still relating to the old site plan.

Planner Burhop stated they can ask the applicant.

Member Bay asked if the ask for different relief than was originally filed and would that affect their obligation to provide notice of this hearing to the neighbors.

Planner Burhop stated no because the changes are a reduction in what is being requested, not an addition.

Member Bay stated the reactions from the neighbors were based on the old site plan as opposed to new site plan.

Planner Burhop stated the letters were provided by the applicant’s attorney and are signed by the owners to the north and west.

Member Bay asked why the applicant waited until today to submit the new site plan.

Planner Burhop stated the Forester’s report was provided late yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, 484 Central, Highland Park, IL, stated they had a meeting with the Forester who indicated there was some concern regarding the tree on the south property line, #48 which is a heritage tree. He would like more room in order to improve the survivability of that tree. Late yesterday they received the Forester’s memo discussing the application. In response they met with the applicant and he agreed to shrink the footprint of what is proposed by 8’ to allow more breathing space for the tree to the south so it would have a higher likelihood of surviving. The neighbor to the north is aware and it does not impact him because it is the same setback as the original application. The only neighbor impacted by change is to south and the house will sited 8’farther to the north and much farther than the existing home. This change will benefit the neighbor to the south and the neighbor to the west reaffirmed his support for the application. They do not like to submit things at the last minute on the day of the hearing, but they were just informed of the level of concern raised by the Forester and they believe this meets and exceeds what the Forester would require to preserve tree #48 along the south property line.

Mr. Bernstein stated the applicants are Highland Park residents and the current home is non-conforming regarding north and south setbacks, existing home encroaches further into north and south setbacks than what they are proposing, existing home encroaches into the SSZ, this will remove from the SSZ to allow in order to stabilize and move house to the west, they are seeking removal of one heritage tree located in the middle of the property. Based on the regulations of the lot in depth, there is a very small building envelope for property. They are seeking variance for north and south setbacks and removal for one heritage tree, per arborist’s report there are 91 trees on the property and they are seeking the removal of one tree and want to preserve as many as possible, they are confident they will be able to save every tree except for the one heritage tree in the middle of the lot, alternates were considered, location of property on the lake, SSZ requirements, lot in depth setbacks on the north and south of lot, will address the standards, setback relief, separate set of standards for trees, mandatory and selective findings apply.

Member Bay asked if they had withdrawn the previous request and are dealing with the revised site plan.

Mr. Bernstein stated yes and they are trying to address the concerns of the Forester regarding tree #98. They are going with the site plan submitted today.

Member Bay mentioned Bob-O-Link and it was about the removal of heritage trees. Some of the compelling testimony they found was when an arborist came in and gave an assessment of the conditions of the various trees. He asked if there was testimony about the condition of the tree they want to remove.

Mr. Bernstein stated as mentioned the Forester’s memo, the tree is in fair condition and that is what the arborist certified. The Forester agrees it is in fair condition.

Mr. Mark Downey, Architect, 13705 Ermilie Ct., Lake Forest, IL, stated the drawings submitted today were an effort to respond to the Forester’s comments of yesterday. They looked at the conceptual footprint and they feel can meet their client’s needs. They cannot locate a home that meets the client’s program to the east of the tree. Due to the SSZ setback there is not enough room to locate the home there. They looked at putting the home to the west and that would negatively affect the neighbor and push the home so far from the lake it did not make any sense. They respect his concern about the tree along the south property line. They met several times to see what they could do with the footprint to reduce the width of the house to give comfort to the Forester that the second heritage tree would be able to be maintained. They are not looking to alter the setback along the north property line and are increasing the distance away from the tree and along the south property line with the second site plan. There are not a lot of alternates and they cannot go east and going west is not a practical alternate. They take removal of any tree seriously. With 91 trees on the property they are looking to remove one tree. They will do their best to be respectful and create a home that will blend with the neighborhood. It is important to note that because it is a lot in depth there are unusual setbacks. They are not requesting typical R4 setbacks. They are looking to encroach on these unusual setbacks but they are not pushing the envelope. They are working with the City and neighbors to create the best possible alternative for all.

Mr. Matt Pollack, Red Rock, 151 S. Pfingsten, Deerfield, IL, stated he met with Ben Miller on the property and he understood where he is coming from regarding trees and the heritage tree. They measured from the heritage tree to the south to where the first submission was going to be. It was right on the edge within 1’-3’ of the drip line which infringes on the health of the tree. They received the feedback late last night with regard to the arborist’s recommendations and they want to be respectful of the tree and give it more space so they pulled the south edge of the home farther north to give the tree more space from the root zone standpoint. They will work with Ben on a program for pruning the roots, feeding the tree and doing everything to strengthen the tree as much as possible. On top of the existing home now is a pine tree that is not in great condition and would be the only other tree to come down. It is within 2’ of the existing building. They are surrounded by beautiful oak trees and they plan on taking care of them so they stay healthy. Regarding the SSZ, it makes it difficult to stay away from the heritage tree that they are asking permission to remove. Between that and the SSZ it would have to be a skinny home not fitting for the lot nor a view of the lake. It is difficult to accomplish any of the client’s wants and needs.

Mr. Bernstein stated the Forester talked about the bluff and what they intend to do.

Mr. Pollack stated the bluff needs some love in order to stop degrading that requires removal of certain types of brush and plantings and the replacement of the proper grasses and plantings that bury themselves in into the bluff, give it strength and reduce erosion over time. They are prepared to work with the City to clean up the bluff and put the proper plantings in so they can stop anything from going on with the bluff. On the SSZ and further toward the lake there are 4-6 key trees that are on fringe of the bluff. By strengthening the bluff it will keep those trees from falling onto bluff.

Member Bay stated they have shrunk the footprint by 8’ on the south and have not added any other portion of the house. They are loosing a substantial amount of square footage. He asked where they are taking the space from.

Mr. Downey stated they are taking it from every element of the house. When they presented the first site plan it was more conceptual and since then they have developed it more. They feel confident they can meet their client’s goals with a smaller footprint.

Mr. Bernstein stated his client was the contract purchaser and the purchase is contingent upon getting the relief requested.

Vice Chair Putzel asked about the sketch of the revision.

Planner Burhop illustrated the sketch of the revision and went over it very clearly for the benefit of both the Board and the attending and viewing public. He asked if the applicant was amending the application as Exhibit A with today’s date.

Mr. Bernstein stated the applicant is requesting that the ZBA consider Exhibit A dated Sept. 2, 2021 for the purposes of the application that is currently pending.

Mr. Bernstein stated the heritage tree is in middle of the proposed house and there is no way to work around it. He mentioned the standards and the setback to the north and south, the reasonable return and the allowable envelope being narrow because of the stringent north and south setback created because it is a lot in depth, they cannot get a reasonable return unless relief is granted, being built by applicant for own personal use, regarding the hardship attempting to site the home there is the SSZ to the east, the location of the lake and this creates a unique situation, there are 91 trees on the property and it creates a situation of obvious hardship to applying the zoning code to the property, they believe they meet the hardship standard, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, there is less encroachment than the existing home, it will not be visible and encroachments will be less, seeking minimum necessary to address the hardships outlined and by reducing the footprint of the home they are going back to the bare minimum for a lot along the lake, they are only requesting removal of one heritage tree and it will not alter the essential character and no one can see it, streetscape will remain unchanged, it is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the enjoyment or use of other properties, adjacent neighbors have submitted letters of support, tree is in middle of the property and surrounded by 90 heritage and key trees, there is no practical alternate, lake views cannot get reasonable use without removing tree trying preserve the bluff by moving house further west away from the SSZ which will improve the stability and preserve the sustainability of the bluff. They believe the application meets the mandatory and selective findings.

Member Yablon asked if anyone from Forestry was present.

Planner Burhop stated no.

Mr. Mark Wagner, 25 Lakewood Place, Highland Park, IL, stated he appreciated the work that went into amending the site plan and it is much better than before. The way the current house is that when there is a heavy storm there is excessive stormwater runoff and water runs off the property and it is his killing his hedges. He asked if this would be addressed.

Mr. Pollack stated part of building a new home in Highland Park is that the drainage and grading needs to be approved by the City. This is something they can look at focus on. They are not allowed to exacerbate an issue that exists and the majority of time they improve it. They can look at the topography and a big part of it is having a lot of trees along the south property line. They are cognizant of the root zones, the heritage tree on the south and how they change the grade and how the water flows. They make the changes they are allowed to make and they do not want to damage any other trees or the root zones. They have no issue in trying to help improve the situation and will not make worse than it is. He stated it will better than it is now.

Mr. Wagner stated he appreciated that and would work with him. There are several dead trees and when a storm hits the dead branches fall on his roof and last winter the membrane was ruptured which caused a leak. He asked if they were going to trim back the trees and take down the dead ones.

Mr. Pollack stated they will look at trees from a safety standpoint. They cannot cross the property line even though the tree is on their property it is extending over his. They can work with him and discuss so they have the proper outcome. They will reach out to the neighbors and listen to their concerns. He did not think his concerns were difficult to address and was happy to work with him.

Mr. Wagner thanked him and stated anyone could contact him anytime.

Vice Chair Putzel stated Mr. Pollack and Mr. Wagner can connect through Planner Burhop off line.

Planner Burhop stated regarding the drainage, grading and dead trees, the ZBA does not necessarily consider those issues unless the ZBA considers the issues related to the standards of approval. There are drainage and grading code requirements that are required for a permit. An applicant generally cannot make anything worse.

Vice Chair Putzel asked if they needed two different votes.

Planner Burhop stated if the ZBA does want to approve the application there should be two motions, one for the variations and one for the heritage tree removal.

Member Yablon asked if Mr. Pollack could discuss the margin it gives on the heritage tree.

Mr. Pollack stated they had measured 17’ from the outside of the trunk. They were following the drip line around the east side of the tree and it was between 1’-3’ to get to the outside of the drip line. They moved it 8’ so they went the 3’ necessary to be on the outside of the drip line and added another 5’. The tree will be fenced during construction and they will work with their arborist to put together a plan with Mr. Miller to make sure the roots are pruned. Oaks are sensitive to cutting vs. pulling and it will relieve the stress and they will inject nutrients into the ground that benefit the tree.

Member Yablon asked if the arborist helped them arrive at this number.

Mr. Pollack stated no. You want to stay outside of the drip zone and they increased that by 5’. They are going above and beyond where they should.

Member Zaransky stated regarding the zoning variance he thought it was a no brainer and it would be silly to force a lake lot to face north-south. He would support the heritage tree removal and disagreed with many points on the Forester’s memo. They have explored other practical alternates and there is no where else to put the house. Moving the house to the north would cause a skinny house and be out of place. The house and shape are the right size and direction and he would support both reliefs requested.

Member Beck agreed with Member Zaransky and stated the setback is reasonable and moves it off the SSZ. There is no other alternate other than to remove the tree. He would support both requests.

Member Yablon agreed and voiced frustration that no one from Forestry was present to confirm the information they heard. She thanks the applicant for responding so quickly and coming up with a new plan.

Member Bay stated the zoning issues were straight forward and it is clear what is existing could not be rebuilt and relief is necessary to build anything that makes sense on the lot. He thought the standards had been met. The tree is in the middle of the lot and would be a problem in building anything. The mandatory and selective findings have been met and he commended the applicant and team on decreasing the square footage of the house and would support the latest revised site plan.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed and thought the standards had been met and would have been met with the first draft with regard to the variances and with the most current draft those have been met as well as the trees. She was appreciative of their time and effort. She thought it was an odd shaped lot and they could address this as a board.

Councilman Tapia commended everyone on their problem solving approach.

Member Bay asked if there would be three motions the first being to make it clear they are dealing with the revised site plan.

Member Bay motioned to make a finding of fact that the applicant has revised the site plan and their application and relief sought and that is what they are ruling upon is the latest revised site plan presented today dated September 2. Seconded by Member Zaransky.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Vice Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion to approve the requested variance per the September 2 revised plan. Member Bay motioned they enter the portion of the order that approves the zoning variations as requested, per the revised September 2 plan. Member Yablon seconded.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Vice Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion for the heritage tree request. Member Bay motioned to adopt the portion of the approval order that approves the relief requested pursuant to the heritage tree removal, per the September 2 revised plan. Member Yablon seconded.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Vice Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0.

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

1. #2021-VAR-030

Property: 1306 Fredrickson Place

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Aleksandr (Sasha) Sergeyev

Address: 1306 Fredrickson Place, Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, property background, project proposal, Compere Referral, other comments and requested relief.

Member Bay asked if the applicant wanted to simply rebuild the screened in porch with the same dimensions would they still need relief.

Planner Burhop stated he was concerned if they demolish it might lose its non conforming right but they might allowed to build the same thing.

Member Bay asked if it is considered demolished if they replace more than 50%.

Planner Burhop stated these situations of non-conforming structures are the trickiest zoning code questions staff deals with.

Member Bay stated if they grant this they are having the de facto effect of making this a legal lot or record so anything that complies with zoning and building codes can be built in the future.

Planner Burhop stated if this approved they would be allowed to build anything if meets the requirements. It is not a blanket approval. If the applicant proposed any type of addition that doesn’t meet zoning code then they would have to come before the ZBA for relief. However, it is a blanket approval for anything that meets zoning code by-right, as long as the applicant receives a building permit.

Member Bay asked about after they make their ruling assuming it is favorable. Planner Burhop stated if the ZBA approves they would never have to come back.

Member Bay asked what disadvantage is there to allow someone to build on what is not a legal lot of record.

Member Burhop stated these lots were platted in 1923 and then the lot probably met the zoning requirement. The lot limit size was around 7,260 s.f. and this likely would have met it when platted. The purpose of the Legal Lot of Record requirements is to make sure people aren’t creating illegal lots, and this lot was legally platted in 1923 but was no substandard to the zoning requirements for density.

Member stated this was trickier than meets the eye.

Member Beck asked if they vote in favor would anything they want to do would have to come before the ZBA because it is undersized

Planner Burhop stated if the Board grants approval they can make any improvements as long as they meet the zoning code rules.

Mr. Aleksandr Sergeyev, Owner, stated this is a unique property and used to be a one family property. They bought it in 1999 and this is the first thing they are trying to do. The porch is existing and has become unusable and unsafe. They want to rebuild it and it is about to collapse. They want to make it larger because being a screened porch, it is exposed to weather which caused the deterioration. They want to make it a three-season porch with a window to protect the inside and make it more durable. They are improving the property value and also it is hard to invest that much money with only a 10’ x 12’ footprint. If they rebuild as it exists it will be an ongoing thing and in another 10 years they will have to do it again. They have been here 22 years and are not planning on going anywhere. The porch is 10’ x 12’ and they want to make it 14’ x 20’ and it will be symmetrical with the house with a nice roof line. The lot not being a legal lot of record was a surprise to him and he did not understand how it was allowed to be built in 1967.

Member Beck asked if there were any standards they need to address.

Planner Burhop stated the standard eight zoning standards apply.

Member Yablon stated it makes sense to have a legal lot of record and the standards have been met and this seems reasonable.

Member Beck agreed the standards are met and it is a self-evident hardship they did not create. He would support the application.

Member Zaransky agreed there is a hardship they did not create.

Member Bay agreed and he was struggling with whether this is legally a request for a zoning variation being it is a Compere Referral. He thought it met the standards and would favor the relief requested.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed it has met the standards and was a reasonable request. She would support this as a variance.

Planner Burhop stated the ZBA is authorized to consider 14 types of relief in Article 12 of the zoning code. Number 13 is a catchall and the Board can consider any variation of relief referred by Council.

Member Bay stated inasmuch as it is a Compere Referral and Council chooses whether or not to grant the ZBA final authority or refer back to them. Under the charter they already have final authority.

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion.

Member Beck motioned to approve the approval order as written in the packet, seconded by Member Zaransky. Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Vice Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

VII. STAFF REPORT:

The next ZBA meeting is Oct. 7, 2021.

VIII MISCELLANEOUS: None

IX. ADJOURNMENT:

Vice Chair Putzel entertained a motion to adjourn. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Beck.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel

Nays: None

The Vice Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:45 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2587&Inline=True