Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Dec. 16.

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, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Members Absent: Bay, Zaransky

Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop

Student Rep.: None

Council Liaison: Tapia

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

November 18, 2021

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the November 18, 2021 meeting. Member Yablon so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 2, 2021 meeting with corrections on the record by Member Beck. Member Beck so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Member Hendrick stated he had watched the video of the December 2, 2021 meeting. 

Ayes: Beck, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 4-0.

Member Yablon’s internet feed disconnected for the vote.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 12-01-21

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 staff posted the packet today and a draft approval order which has one condition. This was discussed with Mr. Bernstein who had no objections to the condition.

Chair Cullather asked to see the paragraph on the screen and read the memo included the packet.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated he appreciated the Board’s thoroughness with this matter and he worked with staff to craft the language and that the applicant has hired a licensed civil engineer and has begun the investigations to improve the bluff.

Vice Chair Putzel stated there as a typo stating “shall retain.”

Planner Burhop stated shall is not included in the condition. The way the entire order is written the phrase ‘shall’ is included above and says “shall do the following.”

Member Beck stated he was in favor of the proposal but did not like the condition because there is no enforcement. He would support the application.

Member Yablon stated she would support the applicant and agreed with Member Beck and thought it was better to have something vs. not having something. She was pleased to have the condition.

Member Hendrick stated he was not in favor because he did not think the standards were met. He appreciated the Board and Mr. Bernstein working out a condition.

Planner Burhop stated ultimately the responsibility for the enforcement of conditions goes to the zoning administrator, Joel Fontane. This condition was drafted by the zoning administrator and staff believes it is enforceable and a reasonable condition to impose on the applicant. It will accomplish the Board’s goal that the applicant is held to doing the minimum necessary to stabilize the bluff. It is drafted in such a way that it is enforceable because it states what has to happen and it reasonable because it does not peg the City or property owner to enforcement in perpetuity.

Chair Cullather stated he echoed what staff had said and he saw this as a requirement for the permit to be granted and that it becomes the enforcement mechanism. He would support the motion as drafted.

Councilman Tapia stated he did follow up on the Board’s request with the City Manager regarding steep slopes. There is recognition that SSZ 101 education would be helpful and the City is willing to do something along those lines. The request coincided with a current evaluation on the overall needs of other commissions, councils and boards who may have similar needs for orientation. They wanted to roll up their request into a larger consideration. Early in 2022 they will come back with an offer of some education element. It would be a good opportunity to go beyond steep slopes and mention other things they are interested in. This enhancement of your knowledge will be addressed. There will not be a going back in terms of restoring the previous board that looked at steep slopes because it was done to streamline processes. They recognize they have some decision making that is outside our area of comfort and they want to address that. The City Manager reinforced that our experts should be available as part of the process. Having them at the actual meeting would be helpful.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she was fine with the language and with the fact they can enforce it. She was in favor of the request.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Beck motioned to approve the order as modified, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: Hendrick

The Chair stated the Motion passed 4-1.

Mr. Bernstein thanked the Board for their time and consideration and looked forward to working with them.

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

A. #2021-VAR-039

Property: 2340 Maple Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Stephen Holmes

Address: 2340 Maple Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, SSZ area, survey, site plan, applicant photo, elevation/rendering, established building setback, image, FAR review, other comments and requested relief.

Chair Cullather asked the meaning of a private lane and was there a difference from a public street.

Planner Burhop stated not from code perspective.

Mr. Stephen Holmes, Applicant, stated the shrubs to the south are 15’-20’ high and you cannot see the property from the south and it is blocked. It is a unique property and they just moved in and were surprised at having a problem with adding a garage.

Chair Cullather asked Mr. Holmes to walk through the eight requirements and how they are met.

Mr. Holmes stated the existing property will not yield reasonable return and a house in this price range would be expected to have a two-car garage. The existing garage is very narrow and it is impossible to put anything in the garage and have a car in there at the same time. The hardship is that it is a skinny garage and not useful. The have two cars and in the winter this will cause a hardship. You cannot put yard machines in there and get access without pulling the car out. It is cumbersome to have a one-car garage this small. This is the only place to put a garage and the property is on ravine and there is no other place to put a garage. They have not created the hardship and have recently purchased the property. They were not aware a variance was required and the survey they were provided indicated there was 13’on the side yard. It will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and most of the neighborhood cannot see the house except when they drive by it. It is woody and most of the houses are set back quite a bit. On the south side there is a hedge row which blocks the view. The house across the street has a hedge row which blocks their view. The house on the north side is closest is set on the edge of the ravine. That is the only property that would be able to see the garage. It would not be detrimental and they intend to make it very natural with a new driveway and landscaping. The orientation of the house to the north is that it faces the ravine. There are no picture windows that face his property and the only time the garage would be seen is when they are pulling and out of the driveway. The properties are separated by trees as well as a structure for garbage cans that sits on the property line. It will not be a detriment and will not impair light, air or property values in the neighborhood. The property to the north is the only one that comes into play. On Exhibit 12 there are images from various angles and you can see how the property is oriented away from his house. There are no windows except a top set of transom windows and the garage will be below that. Their car is parked in between the properties. The variation will not alter the character of the house. They in intend to apply the same design style as the existing structure. It is in harmony with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. It is zoned R4 but the useable area is 9,000 s.f. and width is only 70’.

Member Hendrick asked why it was not practical to expand onto where the garage is currently.

Mr. Holmes stated he does not want to take away from the living space and there is a kitchen there. He would have to tear out a bathroom. It would take away useable living space on the first floor. They expected they would be able to build a two-car garage and the house is remote enough that they would not be encumbering the neighbors.

Mrs. Michelle Hall, 2369 Maple Ln., Highland Park, IL, stated they had had been living there since 1946 and generations of people have moving in and out. There was never a problem with the garage with the other people and they are wondering why they now realize the garage is too small. The garage will be out of proportion with the lot and house. It will be an eyesore. They are opposed to it and it is a quiet lane with nature and the box on the left side will be terrible.

Mr. Bronson Hall, 2369 Maple Ln., Highland Park, IL, stated he goes back to 1946 when he moved here. In 1961 (unintelligible) wanted to build a carport in 1961 (unintelligible) fighting to put up a house and seven members of the Board rejected it. It will be an eyesore and the character of the lane is important (unintelligible). The lane is owned by them and is private. He thanked the ZBA.

Mr. Scott Hoskins, 707 N. Wells, Chicago, IL, stated he was under contract to purchase the property at 2350 Maple Ln. which is north of the property in question. He was excited about moving to Highland Park and was drawn by the natural beauty. He thought this would be a detriment to the use of the property. The garage structure would create a detriment with the property he is purchasing. The two existing structures are very close and it is minimized a bit by the fact they are side by side and nothing extends out. With the garage going another 20’ towards the front yard it is creating a wall in the open space in the property he is purchasing. It will impact the light and ventilation and there are not just transom windows on the second floor, but there are also transom windows on the lower floor in the carport area. A lot of that light streams into the living room. There is significant impact on the light and ventilation. There is not a lot of outside space to enjoy and he has had a landscape architect spend time in the front yard trying to create a nice ambience with natural landscape. It would be an impact to the enjoyment of the property. He questioned if there were other ways to solve the parking issue. He had no intentions of changing the property. He thought is was more of a convenience rather than a hardship. He went through the standards and they have not been met. Regarding the reasonable return, the property was recently purchased at fair market value. The addition of a two car garage might be adding value. It has not taken away from what a reasonable return would be. Similar homes in the area have one-car garages. He thought the request was more about convenience than hardship. The lack of a two-car garage is not a hardship and not a unique circumstance. The variation will impair light and there are already limited windows to the south facing elevation of 2350 and those windows carry most of the light into the structure. Creating a structure like this that extends 20’ further is going to impair the light to permeate into the residence. It is protruding beyond the front elevation of the other three homes and will be noticeable. He wanted to enjoy the neighborhood and felt it will be a major detriment to the property he is purchasing.

Vice Chair Putzel asked if the neighbors have had a conversation about this.

Mr. Hoskins stated he found out about this from Ms. Grossman and has not had conversations.

Mr. Dan Harris, 2345 Maple, Highland Park, IL, asked about the draft order and there are no plans. He was concerned if the character of the building will be consistent with what is there now and there are no plans.

Planner Burhop stated in the draft approval it references two exhibits by specific name and identifying information that were included in the packet. If the Board were to approve this it would be with the two exhibits. There are two and one is the rendering/elevation which indicates the footprint and maximum height at the peak of the roof at 16’ and the other indicates the footprint and proposed setbacks from the north and east.

Ms. Pamela Grossman, 2350 Maple, Highland Park, IL, stated she has lived in the home for 17 years. It is a Dubin house on a charming lane with architectural homes set back from the street. There is a harmony in the area because of the way the homes are set on the properties and they fit into the landscape. She only has a carport and purchased it in 2004. Henry Dubin built it for himself and family. David Dubin stopped by and introduced himself and asked what she was doing. He stated his father would be proud and gave her all kinds of guidance. It has an outstanding view of the ravine and it is a natural rustic environment with no curbs or street lights. It has no garage and has a single-car carport. There is one window at the southwest corner by the kitchen. It is lannon stone and the jutting out part are windows she added. There are no windows that connect on the north side. Inside the house there is a 12’ marble wall that is between the windows on the north side. In the front there is a 12’-15’ marble wall. The front entrance faces Maple. The home was built to take advantage of the view. Between the homes there are two trees. One of the documents states there is a stone wall next to her garage and in fact there is a 14” lannon stone wall to support the carport. The carport is open on all three sides. She mentioned the image that shows the trees between the homes and the view of the carport. There are windows along the east and south sides of the home. They were put there to capture the light. Most of the light comes in through the southern windows. The kitchen has 10 windows which face south. All the natural light floods the living room because it is an open floor plan. By installing a structure 16’ high it would be higher than the carport. All the windows that bring in the light are on the east and south sides. Her lot line angles back towards the north. She showed the floor plan of both levels. She re-landscaped the front yard with the intent to use it as the entertainment area.

The back is not table land. The garage would block any and all light. The structure would impact light and air. If the garage is erected it will be the view she sees all day. It will change the overall beauty of the street which is why people move here. It is not a tract home and is a natural environment. She hoped the Board could see it would be a benefit to keep it as is.

Vice Chair Putzel asked Ms. Grossman if she had spoken to the new neighbor about this. Ms. Grossman stated he mentioned they were interested in a garage. Vice Chair Putzel asked if she had spoken to him personally and expressed her concern. Ms. Grossman stated she had not.

Mr. Holmes stated the garage is 16’ high and has a sloped roof and has a good pitch. The sunlight will not be blocked as the sun is high in the sky and you can follow the line of the garage roof. If the car was not there the light would go directly into the transom windows on the first and second floors. The view of her house is toward the ravine. He did not mean there were not any windows on the corner. The garage will not go out as far as Ms. Grossman indicated. He did not think it was a strong argument that the garage would block sunlight from streaming into the windows.

Mr. Hoskins stated the lower transom windows will be impacted by any structure that is extended out. There will be some level of impact. He thought there were better ways to resolve the situation.

Ms. Grossman stated she was selling and moving out within two weeks and the house is an amazing architectural masterpiece. She did not know how you could say diminishing the light to the home is not going to affect how you live here. All the light comes from the south. Once the garage steps back she does get some of the natural light. If all the natural light is removed form the front the whole office and living room will not get any natural light. She did not want to lose the sale. She received the letter on Saturday. She thought putting up a structure like this will be detrimental.

Vice Chair Putzel asked Mr. Holmes if they had considered adding living space to a different part of the house perhaps in the rear.

Mr. Holmes stated they are limited in the back on what they can do because of the SSZ. When they moved in the area seemed wide open and spacious. He did not anticipate there would be any objection to moving the front of the house. The question is do they want it there or not vs. is it truly detrimental to the neighborhood. He has not heard anyone make an argument other than they do not want it there. He thought is was a modest improvement and not as onerous as people are making it sound.

Ms. Grossman stated she did not mean to imply the home was depicted incorrectly on the drawings. The previous owners parked their SUV in garage all the time. They talked about building a second garage and expanding it from the room off the kitchen.

Mr. Holmes stated they found a package of plans after they moved in and that was the first time he became aware of the variance issue. He pulled out the survey provided indicated they 13.1’ on the side of the house. They found the plans found in a drawer after they moved in. They showed they had been aware a variance was needed in order to build a garage. There is an option to build a staggered garage and there would be an extension for one bay and the other would be the one that is there which would still need a variance. It could be made to look nice and could be an option but would be an odd design.

Vice Chair Putzel stated she was struggling with this and thought is was very fair for someone to have a two-car garage particularly with the price point for this house. Living in this climate they see this all the time and sometimes give variances to met this unspoken standard. They like to have harmony and make sure that people are communicating with their neighbors. Clearly this has not been discussed off line. She thought it would impair the light and change the character and relations between the neighbors. She did not think they had met the standards and could not approve it. It bothered her and she thought they should be able to have a two-car garage.

Member Hendrick stated the standards have not been met. He agreed with the standard of a two-car garage but he was not convinced the second part of that standard had been met. He thought other alternates could be explored and could be done in conjunction with the neighbors. It seems like all the houses deal with similar constraints. Ms. Grossman’s lot has a carport and that standard had not been met. He did not think the discussion about the survey being inaccurate was a hardship. It sounded like the hardship was created by those involved in the real estate transaction. If they felt the survey was inaccurate they could take that up with whoever advised them on the transaction. This was not for the Board to rectify. He agreed with the essential character of the neighborhood and was not sure how you listen to testimony from people who live on the street saying this will change the character and come to a contrary conclusion. He did not believe many of the standards have been met.

Member Beck stated when they look at the two-car standard it is usually a fairly minimal variance. In this case it is a big ask and having the garage extend that much into the front yard will change the character of the neighborhood and impair the light. He did not think it met many of the standards and could not vote in favor. He thought they could come up with something that is acceptable to everybody.

Member Yablon stated it was great to hear the community be involved. She asked if Councilman Tapia could bring back to the Council the questions about two-car garages. They had been struggling whether this is a right. She agreed there are problems with the standards not being met. She could not support the project at this time.

Chair Cullather agreed with the other members and thanked the applicant and neighbors. He saw it as a big ask with the side and front yard issues and minimally the FAR issue. He understood neighbors saying it would change the character of the neighborhood and the property is bound by where the house was set and the buildable land is limited. They do not set precedent and it is an unspoken rule in the 21st century that two-car garages have become common. When they see older homes wanting to add a second car space the reason the Board is here is that a variance requested. Regarding the light issues, it is difficult to determine the impact of a row of arbor vitae. Over time it could easily block light into the lower windows. They always hope the neighbors have had opportunity to sit down to educate themselves before the hearing. He was not prepared to vote in favor of the variance. He stated they can continue to a later date and he could talk to his architect and neighbors to see if it can be modified or they can vote tonight.

Mr. Holmes asked if they did a staggered garage which takes the north line and FAR out of consideration, the only problem is the front yard setback. He asked if that would change anything. They would still be building something on the front of the house that will block light and change the character of the neighborhood.

Chair Cullather stated he cannot advise him on that. Opening a conversation with the neighbors may help them understand his predicament.

Mr. Holmes asked how long he had to extend.

Chair Cullather stated they can move it to the first week of January or further if he liked. They meet the first and third Thursdays of the month.

Planner Burhop stated they will meet January 6th and January 20th.

Mr. Holmes he may need more time and if there was a limit.

Chair Cullather stated they can continue to January 20th and if he needs more time he can notify Planner Burhop.

Mr. Holmes stated he will work with Planner Burhop.

Planner Burhop stated it is recommended they continue to a date specific. He stated they can continue to February 3rd or 17th.

Mr. Holmes stated he preferred February 17th.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to continue to February 17th. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

Planner Burhop stated this will be continued to February 17th meeting and notice is actual.

VII. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Burhop stated they have always encouraged neighbors to talk with each other and he reminds applicants it is encouraged. The code requirement is that they have to perform the notice procedures.

There was a comment on two-car garages. He stated there are properties that can do many improvements depending on how their architect is able to design it as long as it meets the code. It is difficult to make a code with a magic bullet for every situation. That is why they have the ZBA. If certain things are constantly an issue staff keeps track of this. They have made change and 6-12 months ago there was a change to the code that addressed multi-frontage lots, corner lots, through lots and peninsula lots and as a result the Board may see less applications for minor improvements for those types of properties.

Member Hendrick stated he did not think it should not be a matter of right. If you have a code that says each citizen shall be entitled to a two-car garage and all these heritage trees are taken down and there is nothing you can do because it is by right. This is why they have the Board and he agreed with Planner Burhop.

Vice Chair Putzel stated agreed. She was not saying it was a matter of right, but mentioning it is something they see often. She was not indicating they should make it a standard. It is usually a minimal request and she liked to see neighbors talking with each other.

Planner Burhop stated he could provide more guidance and he hoped the Board did not construe his comments as telling the Board what to do.

Member Yablon stated she was asking Councilman Tapia to go back so that Council would say no, it is not a right and is something for you to decide.

Planner Beck stated he did not think they needed a specific standard and they talk about deminimus standards. Some things come under the discretionary application of the standards. He did not think Council had to say they have to have two-car garages.

Councilman Tapia stated the ZBA does great job of weighing in on these dilemmas. It is a complex set of things that require wisdom and love of the community. They listen to the cases and make the best choice possible. On the two-car garages he has seen the disposition on the part of the Board and if it is not out of proportion they are inclined to say yes. When it is not reasonable they are able to say no. Tonight’s case was an example. In listening to the neighbors there is a certain ethos to the street that they were expressing and they heard it. There was the extra effort to say maybe there is an option. He thought the Board should help manage dilemmas.

Member Beck stated if the neighbors had bought into it and they had met before and everyone agreed it may have swayed his decision.

Chair Cullather stated it would be interesting to run some statistics. They see a small fraction of the building permits. There are some that are approved and never get built. Most things are built without a variance.

VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None

IX. ADJOURNMENT:

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

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:37 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2620&Inline=True