City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Dec. 2.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:32 PM Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Bay, Zaransky, Putzel, Cullather
Members Absent: Hendrick
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Passman
Student Rep.: Knapp
Council Liaison: Tapia
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 18, 2021
Minutes for this meeting will be available for the December 16, 2021 meeting. Member Zaransky stated he had reviewed the video for the November 18, 2021 meeting.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 11-17-21
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD 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 stated there were no updates or submissions. Mr. Manny Gomez provided an Engineering Div. Memo and Planner Burhop read it into the record.
Member Beck stated he had reviewed the video.
Member Bay stated it was a good idea to put the burden on the applicant for shoring up the bluff. He asked Mr. Bernstein if his client was willing to assume that burden and received a positive response. He asked Mr. Passman his opinion.
Mr. Passman stated this does not pose a legal problem. He understood staff’s concerns. If it is the Board’s decision to grant approval with condition there is a way to do it legally.
Member Bay stated there was going to be something added to the order that would say they would do what was reasonably necessary to shore up the bluff. He still maintained that position.
Member Beck asked if owners of lake front property with bluff have to maintain the bluff.
Mr. Passman stated yes there are provisions of the zoning code that require ongoing maintenance.
Planner Burhop stated once a private property owner wants to make repairs they have to submit a permit and there are standards they have to follow to do so. In terms of triggering the requirement, that is a little more complicated. He did not want to go on record as saying the City will require that and he was not aware of a situation where the City has required slope stabilization. Usually it is private property owners that come to them and they do it. The City says you decided you are going to repair it and you have to get a permit and follow the standards. There may be instances where the City may require or compel repairs.
Mr. Passman stated there is nothing that says thou shalt maintain this to a certain standard. There are some specific prohibitions requirements. There is a provision to maintain storm drainage lines, removal of stumps or trees or plants. There is the practical reality that owners tend to be attentive to deterioration of the bluff. They hope for protection of the table land on the property.
Member Beck stated this made him feel they do not need to add requirements on this appeal if they grant the variance. They want to maintain the bluff as necessary.
Member Bay stated there is nothing specific that says that you have to shore up a bluff that may or may not need shoring up in the future. The applicant stated as part of the presentation if you grant the variance including the pool, they will spend an extensive amount money to shore up the bluff. He thought they should take them up on the offer. He thought they should keep it in there.
Member Zaransky stated this could be a slippery slope. They see a lot of applicants with SSZ issues and is this going to be a precedent going forward. He was in favor either way and wondered about the unintended consequence in doing this.
Member Beck asked Member Bay if they do not include the condition would he be against the variance.
Member Bay stated he was on the fence and it was a swaying factor at the time to say they have people who are coming forward. He was not the one who suggested it as a condition, they did. They are willing to spend a lot of money and thought it would be silly not to take them up on the offer.
Member Beck agreed and was in support of the variance either way.
Member Bay stated he did not know if it was a line he needed to consider because it was not drawn and they said if you grant the variance there is some bonus for the City.
Planner Burhop made a presentation including project update, site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, elevations, SSZ, EBS, EBS analysis, other comments and requested relief. The ZBA can impose a condition and there is issue. There were several concerns documented in the Engr. memo being consistent with best practices and how do you enforce that.
Vice Chair Putzel stated the ZBA has struggled going back and forth with the City about the ZBA being held responsible for SSZ. Many of the members did not feel qualified to do that and it was still left up the ZBA. Now they have an issue they think important and want to enforce and Engr. does not want to take on the work. It puts them in a difficult situation.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated they had a conversation at the last meeting and Members Beck and Zaransky watched the videos. The closing of the property has occurred and the Kessels are the owners. He will provide proof ownership. Regarding the Engr. memo, they received it this afternoon. The bluff is in danger and they showed photos. They have also lost table land in the last five years and it is in the best interests of the Kessels to protect the bluff and that is their intention. Mr. Hershenson made the same representation and Mr. Berlinat, the builder, stated as soon as they close and have a determination on the variance request, that is one of the first things they will undertake. It is important to protect the table land and the top of the bluff where the tree is leaning into the bluff. It is in the best interests of the Kessels to make the investment and they intend to do so. They have given the green light to the contractor to begin the process to do that. Whether they want to make it a condition is up to the Board.
Vice Chair Putzel stated her opinion had not changed and she wanted to reiterate what she said and the reasons the applicant is requesting the variance is because they are on the bluff and they need to move the building forward. She was in favor of it and thought they needed a condition tying them to doing the work on the bluff.
Member Bay agreed with Vice Chair Putzel and thought there was nothing lost by having a condition.
Member Zaransky agreed with the majority. He thought Vice Chair Putzel made a meaningful point and agreed that in reading the memo from Engr. if they are going to throw up their hands and it was the Board’s duty to act.
Member Beck stated he was in favor of the variance but not in favor of conditions and would vote either way.
Member Yablon agreed and would request the condition.
Chair Cullather stated this was an important discussion. The Engr. memo stated it was a not a one-time condition and how would they enforce this over time. They can condition the variance based on them shoring up the bluff and he would not be in favor of saying in perpetuity owner after owner. This is a one time shot and if they do the renovation and if there is a bluff issue in the future they will be coming on their own behalf. He was in favor of the variance phrased such that it is tied to a variance to shore up the bluff tied to the renovation but without the concept of perpetuity.
Student Rep. Knapp was in favor of the variance and did not think they needed a condition.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Bay motioned to amend the approval to include a condition as discussed. Vice Chair Putzel seconded with what Member Bay and Mr. Passman suggested.
Mr. Passman stated he understood the condition suggested by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop stated since this is not in the packet, this is the type of amendment that would be drafted by staff with Corporate Counsel’s assistance to come back in two weeks for final review and approval on December 16th.
Chair Cullather this was agreeable.
Mr. Bernstein stated he would contact Mr. Passman and they can create the condition so it would be acceptable to the Board.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed: 6-0.
Planner Burhop stated this was a vote to direct staff to prepare the final approval order with the amendment.
Member Beck asked Councilman Tapia to take this back to Council echoing what Vice Chair Putzel had said. They just passed an amendment to the variance and no way to enforce it. He thought they needed better guidance on these situations.
Councilman Tapia stated he would be happy to do this and wanted to represent the request precisely and get the wording right.
Chair Cullather stated this goes back to the decision by Council to make some former committees into advisory groups and had been dealing with items regarding the SSZ. They would have gone to the Nat. Resource Commission. When they were eliminated
those responsibilities came to the ZBA. It used to go the Nat. Resource Commission and then to the ZBA. It was dual commission process and was slowing down applications and some affecting SSZ had been reviewed by the Corps of Engrs. So it was not necessary for them to go through the Nat. Resources Commission. This body does not necessarily have that expertise.
Vice Chair Putzel stated this was exactly what she was referring to. This was a discussion they had for several meetings and unanimously the ZBA felt that were not qualified for it to fall under their jurisdiction. She wanted to make sure they were handling it responsibly.
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. #2021-VAR-038
Property: 91 Sycamore Place, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone
Appellant: Judith Hope Dworkin & Bradley S.M. Dworkin as Co-Trustees of the Judith Hope Dworkin Revocable Trust under Second Reinstatement of Declaration of Trust dated April , 2019.
Address: 1850 Green Bay Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, topography, EBS, no SSZ, images, EBS calculations, applicant exhibit, other comments and requested relief.
Member Bay asked if the outlier was the house on the west and does not front on Sycamore. If they removed the outlier how would it change the EBS.
Planner Burhop stated it would still not comply and the average would be 52’ and they are requesting 46’. It would reduce the request from 15.5’ to 6’. They would still need relief but it would reduce it by 9’.
Member Yablon asked for an explanation for the SSZ.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant gave several reasons and they talked about grade issues on the north and the house had to be pushed farther south. There are grade issues on the north side but there are no SSZ issues for the property.
Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated the reasons why they are here is because of a quirk in the code. The established front yard setback as defined in Article II, Section 150.202 in a block containing three or more single family residences. In order for the established front yard setback to apply you need three homes on the block. The zoning administrators made the determination that 1689 Lake which is a corner lot and 53 Sycamore which does not front a portion of the improved Sycamore. Sycamore ends practically at the property line and then a street that exists only on the City maps continues all the way from the dead end to the lake. If you look at the block there is one house that does not front the street and one house that does not front the street but where a zoning map says a street exists. If it were not for this technicality they would not be here tonight. There are here because the zoning code has the interpretation which adds to the hardship of the property and the streetscape that is under the policy does not exist on this block. There is only one house that is relevant and that is directly to the west, 105 Sycamore. They are requesting to line up this house with the house to the west to create a streetscape. Any setback difference could corrupt the streetscape not only the two-house block. They are seeking to create a useable back yard in spite of the grade change.
Mr. Nate Kipnis, Architect, stated the notion of having a bunch of houses in a line is the intent of the established front setback. The house on the corner has nothing to do with the street and is not on the street. The notion of having a bigger back yard and avoid some of the terrain is partially driving that. Their firm is well known for their sustainable efforts. They are trying to get all homes to be net zero by 2030. They will attempt for it to be all electric with no carbon emissions on site. The idea is to push the house forward a bit, line it up with the adjacent property and avoid the terrain back there.
Mr. Bernstein stated regarding a reasonable return if required to use the property only under the conditions allowed by code, there is one house from the lake which has a constrained building pad not as a result of the fact that two houses that do not even front the street that exists. The property is required to be developed strictly in compliance with the zoning with those two lots being counted and the applicant would not be able to get a reasonable return. They are constrained in the front by an artificial line and in the back based on the topography. Regarding the hardship, the street functions as a two-house lot and the hardship is driven by topography issues in the rear and what is creating the artificial setback line are two houses that do not front the practical street. The application will not materially impact the neighborhood and improve it by moving the structure to the south and not impact the grade change area so there will be less draining and grading issues and benefit the neighborhood. It will not alter the essential character and the only houses that should line up are 105 and the subject property. It makes sense to line up the two houses so the street will flow and when someone makes the turn they will see houses that line up properly. That is preserving the essential character of the neighborhood. They have also received two letters of support and they supported the request.
Mr. & Mrs. Dworkin thanked the Board for their time.
Member Yablon asked if they could talk about the slope issues in the back yard.
Mr. Kipnis stated the slope on the northeast corner is steep and nothing can be close to that. The lining up in the front make the most sense and those two things work together. There is some terrain that is unbuildable and unusable.
Mr. Bernstein stated they obtained a topo study of the property which they provided to the City.
Chair Cullather mentioned 1689 Lake and if they bring it out does that do anything to their setback.
Planner Burhop stated if the variance is approved it will impact the established building setback for the other three properties.
Mr. Bernstein stated it is a Frank Lloyd Wright and if you did anything you would need a certificate of appropriateness to do anything on the outside.
Member Yablon stated she was in favor and it is a reasonable request and meets he standards.
Member Beck stated agreed with Member Yablon.
Member Zaransky stated he agreed.
Member Bay stated oftentimes especially when there are cases with a few amount of homes the established building setback ends to get really skewed and creates more problems than it solves. He would vote to approve.
Student Rep. Knapp stated he had nothing to add.
Councilman Tapia stated he would support the variance.
Vice Chair Putzel stated she had nothing to add and this is a unique circumstance and she was in favor of the variance.
Chair Cullather agreed and stated you cannot write a piece of zoning code that covers every property in the City.
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, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated there are two items for the December 16th meeting and they are still continuing virtual meetings.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Member Zaransky asked if there had been talk about virtual vs. Zoom meetings. Planner Burhop stated none that he had been made privy to.
Councilman Tapia mentioned the SSZ as they think about alternates and the chances of the Nat. Resource Commission being reinstated are not that great. He asked if some training SSZ was worth looking into. He will ask about the City Engr. and Forester being brought back into the process. He asked for their input.
Vice Chair Putzel thought it was a great suggestion.
Chair Cullather agreed and if they could at least know what questions they should be asking it would be helpful. They need to able to understand what questions they should be asking.
Member Bay stated if there are SSZ issues they could bring the Engr. Dept. into the discussion.
Member Beck stated it would be helpful to know what enforcement they have at their disposal.
Mr. Passman stated it is a discussion of having in greater detail. Enforcement is going to be up to one of two groups either staff or neighboring property owners. When they approve an order it essentially becomes part of the zoning regulations for a given property. Staff administers the zoning code and if someone is not complying with a condition it could mean a violation notice or coming back for a invalidation of a variation. The second way is that there is an IL law that allows property owners within 1200’ to bring their own enforcement action.
Member Beck asked what are the standards and how far can they go.
Member Bay stated they are not bound by precedent and one condition does not effect future cases.
Mr. Passman stated that is the general concept and what they do on other applications should not be relevant. The part of the conversation that gets detailed is the general concept that the conditions should be rationally related to the relief requested.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Vice Chair Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Beck.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:01 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2613&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up