Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Nov. 18.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

MEETING LOCATION: Virtually by Zoom and in Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL

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: Yablon, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Members Absent: Beck, Zaransky

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: None

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

October 21, 2021

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2021 meeting. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. Member Yablon stated she was absent October 21, 2021 and would abstain.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Abstain: Yablon

The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 11-3-21

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. NEW BUSINESS:

A. #2021-VAR-036

Property: 943 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone

Appellant: Andy & Samantha Kessel

Address: 2244 Tennyson Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, elevations, SSZ, established building setback, other comments and requested relief.

Member Bay stated the shared screen is not a full screen. He asked to see the proposed site plan. He stated the yellow is what is proposed and he was looking towards back toward the one-story pool house. He stated it appeared to be outside of the buildable area.

Planner Burhop stated it is a specifically allowed exception in Section 150.1906(C) that allows structures to be reconstructed in the SSZ as long as it is within an existing footprint. It has been reviewed by Engineering.

Member Bay stated it was grandfathered in because the existing structure was non confirming and is there now.

Planner Burhop stated this is in the SSZ regulations and is an extra grandfather right that other structures do not get for other setbacks.

Vice Chair Putzel wanted to confirm they are only discussing the EBS and not the SSZ. Planner Burhop stated the only relief requested is the encroachment into the EBS.

Chair Cullather asked about the slide with block setbacks. He mentioned the house at 985 and asked if it was a detached garage.

Planner Burhop stated he was pretty sure it was a garage.

Chair Cullather stated when you are dealing with garages in backyards they can be closer to the property lines as it is a detached structure vs. being attached. He asked if there was anything regarding to a detached structure and the front setback.

Planner Burhop stated it only has that special exception in the required rear yard otherwise it has to meet the same setbacks as the principal structure. If you look at the definition of EBS it does not necessarily have to be measured just to the foundation of the home.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, asked for the stated established front yard setback in the presentation. He stated this was the third time in the last seven years he has appeared before the ZBA representing someone on the block looking for relief from the established front yard setback. He has represented the owners of 785, 975 both of which received variances in order to set their houses where they are currently located, 45’ to 47’ from Sheridan Rd. The arguments tonight are similar to those two properties. The existing home is non-conforming and it is a very troubled lot. Over the last five years 14’ of the table land has been lost due to erosion. He received one call from the neighbor to the south who was concerned about the condition of the bluff. If not addressed and a restoration plan is not put in place it will negatively impact his table land. He was supportive of moving the house to the west away from the bluff and was concerned about further damage to the bluff if a foundation was placed in the area where the existing home is. He wanted the house sited further to the west. He assured the neighbor to the south if the variance is approved and they purchase the property they intend on having a robust bluff restoration plan submitted to City in order to preserve the table land. They are about to invest a lot of money and they want to preserve as much table land as possible. There are competing issues between the steep slope and the meandering Sheridan Rd. also contains a significant grade change from north to south. Not only does Sheridan Rd. meander, but the top of the bluff meanders and it creates a small building pad that does not do a property along Lake Michigan justice.

Mr. Michael Hershenson, Architect, made a presentation including the retaining wall on site is sinking down and the land is sloping down and now counted in the steep slope area, setback is 15’ average behind where it is supposed to be, client wants a pool and they have, there us steep slope limit of 40’ and another 10’ for the pool, distance left between pool and the steep slope setback is not very big, this is the only place left for the house, if they put garage between pool and the setback they would be turning into the garage from the side and would need a 25’ setback, there would not be anything left for the house, would be bad for house design and also they want to put the garage on this side and have the rest of house get the light, would have to wind driveway around and asking to destroy more trees than with current arrangement, now they are only taking down two key trees, have moved garage further to the south to preserve a 24” white oak, no room left for house if they have a pool, for the garage they are creating a design that is not just flat, but with columns and setback a portion of façade and have windows so that part is more visible, it is more pleasing than a pure box, height of garage 11’-11” to top of parapet, have worked with Ben Miller to minimize tree loss.

Mr. Bernstein mentioned the reasonable return they discussed the siting of the home between the bluff and steep slope and Sheridan Rd. curves at this location, does not allow for a large enough building pad to receive a reasonable return for lakefront property, the hardship is the competing interests between the two setbacks, the purpose of the established front yard setback is to create a streetscape, there is one house closer to the street and houses that are further back, they are seeking to site the house is similar to others to the north where the garages encroach into the established front yard setback and the vast majority of the house is behind the 86’ line, this request will improve the property values of the neighborhood and the applicant is making a significant investment in improving and preserving the failing bluff and that will benefit the neighbor to the south and the bluffs are intertwined, it will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, is a fair and reasonable request, have worked with Ben Miller to minimize tree loss, have submitted revised plans in order to show the Board they were seeking to minimize the impact on trees.

Member Hendrick wanted to hear more about the first standard and why they cannot get a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions. They have an assumption that the pool, pool house and three-car garage have to be there. He was having trouble with why they need all that and theoretically they would still have a problem if pool was still there. They would not have a problem if there was no pool.

Mr. Bernstein stated reasonable return differs from a house on a lake bluff from a house in west Highland Park. There is level of expectation for a house east of Sheridan Rd. in order to get a reasonable return for that property. The property at 975 has a six-car garage. There is a certain expectation of what kind of amenities would go with the home. Regarding the pool, it is reasonable to assume that someone living in this type of property is willing to invest in buying the property. It is a large 40,000 s.f. lot. There is a trend toward a side loading garage and in order to do that they have to bring it around to the north side and lose several key trees in the process. In addition it would make a very small footprint for the first floor and without this the property cannot get a reasonable return.

Mr. Hershenson stated it would be a very small footprint for the first floor. To not do a three-car garage on a 100’ lot is very unusual.

Member Bay asked if there was not a pool what they would do with the garage and how it would affect the garage.

Mr. Hershenson stated as it is they made the pool 16’ vs. the typical 20’ and maybe they could move the house another 16’ to the east and that would allow some relief. With the table land they have 30’ to the edge of the SSZ. They cannot have any patio over the edge of the SSZ. Maybe they could have 35’ of patio or an area where they could have something.

Member Bay asked if they could build the same structure and push it to the east and decrease the amount of setback.

Mr. Hershenson stated the pool takes space and they would have to ask for a little relief.

Mr. Bernstein stated the focus on the pool was misplaced. Regardless of whether it is a pool or yard the applicant is investing a significant amount of money to purchase the property and build the house. They want a backyard for recreation and they are subject to a more onerous line because the bluff is failing. Even if the pool was not there would be grass. They want to enjoy the back yard and the view of the lake. Regardless every property along the lake has a recreational area.

Member Bay asked if there was no pool would they still be asking for the same amount of relief.

Mr. Bernstein stated they can have back yard.

Mr. Hershenson showed the garage and house pushed up to setback line. They could not have the patio in the SSZ except for three sections 150’. Without relief they could not have a patio.

Member Hendrick stated they could have a yard in front.

Mr. Hershenson stated it is filled with a lot of trees and not the same.

Mr. Bernstein stated the topography of the lot slopes toward Sheridan Rd. The table land is where the house is sought to be sited.

Member Bay stated there is a huge difference between a yard in the front and a yard in the back because the yard in the back has a view of the lake.

Mr. Bernstein stated a reasonable return for the property is to be able to enjoy the outside. There are only a finite amount of houses in Highland Park that have the ability to take advantage of that situation.

Member Hendrick stated they are building the house and get to decide how big the house is and are they are in control of every aspect of the project.

Mr. Bernstein stated they could build a 9,000 s.f. house and they are seeking significantly less. They are seeking to build a minimum sized house. This house is two thirds of the allowable. They are not maxing out the FAR and have self-managed by building a house one third less than they could build as a matter of right.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she understood the argument regarding the pool and wanting to enjoy the lakefront. She asked about the bluff and if the SSZ was not an issue they would not be talking about the relief. She stated she was familiar with the bluffs and who has done restoration. She was curious about the plans because they mentioned restoration. If they are not going to do it, but still get relief it did not make sense to her.

Mr. Hershenson stated they are planning to do something and they have to build a new wall in front of the existing wall because it is failing and it is higher. It will stabilize this portion. They have been talking to bluff specialists and landscape architects. The owners do not own the property yet and the current owner will not permit a topo survey of the bluff until she is out. They do not have concrete plans, but they have to do something and there is half-way measure, they have to go the whole way.

Mr. Bernstein stated they still have diagnostic work to do because they have no access to the property. They have to determine the overall stability of the bluff and perform borings and remove invasive species. They have lost 14 trees in the last 5 years. If the tree pictured comes down it will take a huge amount of table land with it. Then they would be asking for an even larger variance.

Member Bay asked if the applicant would be willing to entertain some reference to reasonable and appropriate bluff restoration in the approval order should it be approved.

Mr. Bernstein stated yes.

Chair Cullather asked if the sale was contingent upon this approval. Mr. Bernstein stated is was not part of the transaction and did not know the terms. Mr. Hershenson has not heard that is case.

Mr. Bernstein stated one of the owners passed away and the other is looking to relocate.

Chair Cullather stated he almost believed they were not receiving a reasonable return because it does not have a pool and a three-car garage. He asked if they looked at other alternates.

Mr. Hershenson stated he showed the applicant everything possible with the garage and the house would be very small. It was not acceptable. There would be no dining room and a long haul around the garage and it did not work. They would have to have relief no matter what. They could go to a two-car garage and no one is doing that.

Chair Cullather stated the ZBA has had issues with applicants who try to make the argument that the three-car garage is the standard but they were not there yet.

Mr. Hershenson stated he had not done a two-car garage in decades and no one wants one.

Mr. Bernstein stated if they surveyed new construction properties on Sheridan Rd. in Highland Park in the last 15 years it would be hard to find two-car garages. It is the unique nature of the property.

Member Hendrick stated it is a choice coupled with the fact that the applicant is asking for relief. If every other property asked for a three-car garage they would be asking the same questions. They ask the same questions for two-car garages. In his tenure they have taken a step and two-cars garages are the standard and he never contemplated three-car garages being the standard.

Mr. Bernstein stated one reason there is a ZBA is Highland Park has many unique properties and one size does not fit all. Maybe a one-car is appropriate on Burton. If you have a four-acre estate by Heller Nature Center is it normal and customary to have a two car garage on a four-acre estate. Each property has its own level of expectation. The location of the house is driven the fact that you cannot get a reasonable return if you do not have the amenities this location demands.

Member Hendrick stated he was having a hard time granting under this condition a pool and looking at prior cases where they have thrown it out under the reasonable return saying you cannot have a not screened in porch.

Mr. Bernstein stated the reason he mentioned previous cases was not precedent. If they decide not to allow for a screened-in porch on one property he was sure they had a valid reason. In this situation there have been two other variances granted on this block with the same issues. One was for a three-car garage and he other was for a six-car. The Board felt it is not the actual usage, but the hardship is derived from the property. To get a reasonable return you need to have some outside space. You need to have a rear yard otherwise you cannot enjoy the environment. Regarding the garage the location of the house drives it. You cannot get a reasonable return east of Sheridan Rd. if you do not have a three-car garage.

Mr. Hershenson illustrated other houses in the area approved by the Board and this has less mass with one wing than the two Board approved precedents.

Member Bay stated if you buy a property this large in Highland Park and put that kind of money into a large house and have a clause relating to the restoration of the bluff it should be expected they have a three-car garage in order to get a reasonable return. We may not like it, but that is today’s world.

Mr. Hershenson stated they are creating the plan. They can choose the tradeoffs in the zoning.

Member Bay stated they can also chose to live somewhere else. He did not think it unreasonable to expect it is kind of a standard. He did not think it unreasonable to have a three-car garage to get a reasonable return. It may not seem like a hardship to a normal person, but it is a reality.

Member Hendrick stated he was not convinced all the alternates were explored and lead him to believe that must be taken. Even if he did agree a three-car garage in this neighborhood is a requirement. When he looked at the drawings he was not convinced of that and was not there yet.

Member Bay stated anyone coming there would rather make the trade-off for a reasonable standard to get rid of the pool rather than get rid of a three-car garage. It is not realistic in today’s world.

Mr. Bernstein stated if the lot or neighborhood could support a three-car garage he could agree. If you look at the neighborhood none of the houses have garage doors facing the street. The trend is the public does not want to look at garage doors. They are talking about minimizing the bulk as the public drives down the street. The bulk has been limited by the height and the doors are not facing the street. Another alternate is if you tried to do a front load garage will it alter the essential character of the neighborhood. They want to preserve Sheridan Rd. and 95% of new construction do not have front load garages.

Chair Cullather stated the Board is not bound by precedence and each Board makes it own decision based on the evidence presented.

Mr. Bernstein stated a reasonable return is to have certain level of expectation from the property otherwise the property would be less valuable.

Mr. Larry Berliant, Contractor, stated the bluff was done without permit in 2004. They did an analysis of the wall and there are photos and it is moving down and east and has dropped about 6’. The owners know this. They have engaged Greengard Engineering and they will do soil borings behind the wall to do a complete analysis of the bluff with the intention of a complete restoration. He did not know how they were going to do it and he has been told the way to go is just east of the existing wall and put in a minimally invasive way to retain it and take the interior wall down and fill it in with soil. That is the least invasive. They have been in conversation with Ben Miller and JMR Landscaping and Ben has gone through the entire bluff. They are working closely with the City to make sure they do it correctly. The wall is failing and it is not a little task physically or monetarily to rebuild it. The owners are aware of it and are fully engaged and recognize if they do not stabilize the bluff they are putting a new house at risk. The goals for many communities are to keep the keep bluffs from eroding and sinking into the lake. They are closing on Dec. 1 and they will start borings on Dec. 6. They want to get the engineering done as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bernstein stated this is not a $400,000 to $500,000 spec home. They are investing invest several million dollars in Highland Park and when you invest that much there is a certain level of expectation. They have self-managed and not maxed out the FAR and the house is one-third less than what they could as a matter of right.

Member Bay stated the two swaying factors for him were if they got rid of the pool and pushed the house back that would eliminate the back yard. Having something in the back is the essence of the property. They have the right to be able to use the back yard and appreciate their location and view of lake. The bluff restoration is key and they have people who are willing to do things to preserve the bluff and make a substantial investment. They are willing to put it in the order he would favor the request subject to putting it in the order to restore the bluff.

Planner Burhop stated if the Board adopted the order with condition there is more to that type of condition and it has to be written correctly. He asked to continue to the next meeting so staff could work with Engineering to draft the condition.

Member Bay thought it was reasonable and appropriate.

Member Yablon stated it was a excellent presentation and the house is stunning. She appreciated the work that would need to be done on the bluff. She was having a difficult time saying if you live here you have to have a pool and a three-car garage. The normal course of business would be to have a three-car garage and she questioned the amount of relief when it comes to the pool. She was on the fence.

Mr. Hendrick stated the house looks great and for the most part he has stated what he thinks. The problem for him is he lives in west Highland Park and sees this from a different perspective. He did not agree how they characterize the code and he did not agree with the interpretation. Reasonable minds can disagree and that is a part of being on the Board. He found it hard when he has held some people to the technical reading of the standard. He could not support the request.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she appreciated them addressing the issues regarding the bluff. She thought they should revisit what a reasonable return is. It says in the standards this however does not mean granting the variation is based totally on whether the owner can make money on the property. She thought a reasonable return could be the pleasure and happiness the property yields. It is not unusual for someone investing in property on the

lake to want to have a pool and a three-car garage. The garage make most sense in the front of the property. The plight of the petitioner is due to unique circumstances because of the SSZ and the bluff. She thought it made sense and she would support it and agreed with Member Bay. She thought the applicant was responsible for the bluff and accountable for handling the bluff relief. If they are going to do the work they should be responsible for it. The bluffs are a treasure of Highland Park and people have put lot of money into them. As a lakefront owner you have the responsibility. She asked Planner Burhop about the continuance.

Planner Burhop stated his preference would be if the Board wants a condition it be continued without a motion to adopt with the understanding staff would come back with something that incorporated that language.

Chair Cullather stated it is a unique property in a unique location. It presents some challenges for the Board. It is hindered by a bluff that is eroding and creating a SSZ that goes further into their property. Maybe the older houses on the street could have had architects and officials that would have set them further away from the bluff in order to protect it over time. He was persuaded by Member Bay and Vice Chair Putzel and believed Corporation Counsel advice that the reasonable return has to do with the owners’ enjoyment and use of the property inclusive of the ROI. The owners plan to be here for along time and he thought the fact there are other houses on the block that are close to Sheridan Rd. is such that they can make the argument whether it is a three-car garage they have the right to build something. It is a flat roof garage and does not have a big peak. He would ask for a continuance to a later date so that staff can speak with Engineering and counsel to amend the order to include bluff protection.

Mr. Bernstein stated he would request continuing to December 2nd. He can consult with staff to craft language to capture the intent of the majority with regard to addressing the bluff and coming back with language with what they have heard tonight. He thanked the Board for their time.

Planner Burhop stated he wanted make clear that in the condition, if approved, the owner must maintain the bluff in a reasonable manner.

Member Bay stated it should contain language to the effect that they should reasonably and adequately shore up the bluff so it can be maintained.

Planner Burhop stated it should include the existing table land as well. Member Bay motioned to continue to December 2, 2021, seconded by Member Hendrick. Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Yablon, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

VI. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Burhop stated there were questions about an application and the bonus FAR provision, specifically the seven-year clause. A new home cannot use the FAR until it becomes seven years old. This goes back to 2002-04 and the PC and Council went back and forth and tossed around a five and seven year term. The seven-year was what the decided on. Bonus FAR is not meant for new homes and seven years was decided upon.

Planner Burhop stated there are two applications for the next meeting, this item and 91 Sycamore Pl.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS:

Chair Cullather asked if the SSZ would have come under the old Nat. Resources Commission.

Planner Burhop stated the application tonight would not have triggered any commission or board review. What the application proposed tonight for SSZ work is by right through the permitting process. There was a change where a request for a SSZ variation had to go to the Nat. Resources Commission and then to the ZBA and that has been repealed.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Yablon, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 5-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:10 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2612&Inline=True