City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Jan. 6.
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, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Members Absent: Yablon
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Rep.: Bach
Council Liaison: Tapia
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 16, 2021
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2021 meeting. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Beck. Member Zaransky stated he would abstain as he was absent this meeting. Member Bay stated he had reviewed the video for this meeting.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
Abstain: Zaransky
Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals Thursday, January 6, 2022
The Chair stated the Motion passed 5-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 12-22-21
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. NEW BUSINESS:
A. #2022-VAR-001
Property: 2000 Ridge Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R3
Appellant: Ceres Ridge Farm LLC
Address: 91 Hazel Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, subject property - location of structures, location of structure relative to abutters, illustration of proposed project, other comments and requested relief.
Vice Chair Putzel asked if Council had any comments other than sending it their way before final vote.
Councilman Tapia stated they had none.
Member Bay asked to see photos of the interior.
Planner Burhop stated the way the Highland Park zoning code works for non-conforming is that there is no deminimus standard. You can make alterations, repairs or improvements to a non-conforming structure as long as it does not count as a demolition, you cannot make a new non-conformity and you cannot increase the degree of the existing non-conformity. He illustrated the photos.
Member Bay asked in order to preserve the interior are they trying to build on top of the outside as opposed to putting insulation in the rafters.
Planner Burhop stated yes and the applicant could address this.
Mr. Mike Gamson, Applicant, stated it is a beautiful barn and it has a number of beautiful beams and are the kind that do not exist today. They define the character of the inside of the barn. From a code perspective they are in a Catch 22 which is if they do anything to modernize it they need to make the whole thing to code which means they have to insulate and if they do it on the inside they would have to bury the beams they are trying to highlight. They thought about how to insulate on the outside and he thought if they shaved off a commensurate amount from the total height of the building by taking off the peak and rounding it and bring it down 6” so the 6” of bulk added to the outside would not increase the overall height, but increase the bulk.
Mr. Ben Kueck, 2245 W. Cortez, Chicago, IL 60622, stated he would reiterate what Mr. Gamson had said.
Mr. Tom Shafer, Architect, 1619 Silvester Pl. Highland Park, IL, stated they are going to replace the roof material from an asphalt shingle to wood shake and it will improve the appearance of the roofing material and they are not raising the height. They are caught between a rock and a hard spot between trying to maintain the Zoning Board conformity as well as the building code and making the Historic Preservation Commission happy that they are saving a historic building. It was built after the turn of the century and is an amazing structure. They want to maintain the exposed structure on the inside, hence the roofing insulation on the top.
Member Hendrick thanked the applicant for a thorough presentation. He thought the standards had been met and was in favor of recommending back to Council to approve.
Member Zaransky agreed and thought it was a no brainer and would support the application. He would not want the interior disturbed.
Member Beck stated he agreed with everything.
Member Bay agreed and would support the application.
Vice Chair Putzel stated she would approve the application and recommend to Council.
Chair Cullather stated he agreed and thought it was a well put together presentation. He enjoyed seeing the photos and letter of hardship. He was in favor of Council approving this.
Member Hendrick stated he would be willing to make a motion for proceeding with findings of fact.
Student Rep. Bach agreed and thought it was well thought out.
Councilman Tapia stated it was a reasonable request.
Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the findings of fact in the packet recommending Council approve the variance request. Member Bay seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 6-0.
B. #2022-VAR-002
Property: 1715 Southland Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Joel S. Hymen
Address: 1715 Southland Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, site plan, rendering, photos, other comments and requested relief.
Member Hendrick asked if the deck had received a variance from the ZBA in the past. Planner Burhop stated there were no variances on file for this property.
Member Beck stated the rendering showed a fence along the north and asked if they intend to install one.
Planner Burhop stated the rendering shows a fence on the north. He thought the survey had indicated a fence. Regardless, they are allowed to put in a 6’ high fence.
Member Bay asked about the height difference between the deck and the patio.
Planner Burhop stated for the patio it has to be 12” or less and it will slab on grade. The applicant can respond to this. He did not know how high the deck was.
Member Bay mentioned there was reference to drainage and asked how the drainage will be affected by substituting this concrete for the deck.
Planner Burhop stated this information is on the site plan submitted. The applicant submitted for permit first and they needed that information for the building permit.
Member Bay stated because concrete is more impervious than wood, would that change favorably or unfavorably or are there some extra arrangement for additional drainage.
Planner Burhop stated the plan indicates the drainage will run to east and stay on the subject property. The building code standard is that you cannot make a situation worse.
Member Zaransky stated they could use permeable pavers.
Chair Cullather stated in the applicant’s letter of hardship they refer to the history of the deck. There was a patio before the deck, and the deck was built, and now they are going back to a patio.
Mr. Joel Hymen, Applicant, stated based on Planner Burhop’s presentation that the history of their ownership would be important. They purchased the house in 1983 and at that time there was the front door facing south, a patio door facing north and no door or access to the east. They are burdened with two front yards. In 1988 they applied to get a permitted deck built and got the permit. From 1988 to 2021 they had a raised deck which was about 2’-3’in height and it had a guardrail built into the deck that was about 4’ high on three sides and the garage and the house protected the fourth side. The purpose of the deck was that they had young kids and wanted an area in which they could watch the kids while still entertaining. The deck is in a state of disrepair and they have skunks underneath. They also have carpenter bees and have tried to fix these issues. Some of the boards needed replacement and it occurred to them there is a different kind of entertainment they would like which is not tied to the deck. There are different reasons for getting rid of the deck and replace it with a blue stone patio. They are going to erect a fence for some privacy. It will be an L-shaped fence and the neighbor on the east has their fence. They are going to put in some shrubbery. The neighbor to the east was causing water to pool on their lot and they added a drain in the ground to eliminate water that used to stand on their lot. They are not asking for something new or to violate a setback. They are asking for half of what they have because the permitted deck went all the way to the lot line. They are asking for 1’ closer to the lot line so they have room to arrange furniture and move around. The BBQ can be 1’ further away from the house and they believe it is consistent with other uses in the neighborhood. It is 1’ less than they are accustomed to. They think the patio will be good for the neighborhood and skunks will not congregate around their house. It looks nicer and it is not about how much value it will add. It is about how they can get greater satisfaction for the remaining years they will be living in Highland Park. He believed there is a hardship in the sense that the side yard is the only functional useable yard. The east side has never been accessible and he hoped the Board will grant the 1’ variance so they can enjoy their house.
Member Bay stated there is a 15’ x 15’ stone patio on the east side.
Mr. Hymen stated part of the plan is to have something there so if they move away from the eating area they have somewhere else to go.
Member Bay stated they could do that as a matter of right. He stated the deck was 29’ x 12’ and they want to replace it with a 29’ x 11’ patio and the depth is 11’.
Mr. Hyman stated that is correct.
Member Hendrick asked if he had conversations with the neighbor.
Mr. Hyman stated she asked what they were doing and they explained that it would be a very tasteful replacement of the deck and they would make sure that it would be no worse and even better than the situation now and she had no objection.
Vice Chair Putzel stated the hardship is obvious with the two front yards and the neighbor is in favor. She thought it met the standards and would be in favor of the application.
Member Bay agreed and thought it was a very reasonable request since they are cutting back the size of the encroachment and 11’ is not over reaching. He would support the application.
Member Zaransky agreed and thought the standards were met.
Member Hendrick agreed and thought the standards were met.
Member Beck agreed and was in favor if the application.
Student Rep. Bach agreed and thought the standards had been met.
Chair Cullather agreed and thought the applicant did a fine job with the history of the property and it was important to understand the context of what was here and how it compares to the deck that had previously been there. It is 1’ smaller as far as the distance to the property line and is an improvement over something abutting the property line. He thought the standards were met.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Bay motioned to approve the variance and adopt the approval order provided in the packet. He would like the approval order approved with the reference to 943 Sheridan Rd. deleted. Member Beck seconded.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.
VI. STAFF REPORT:
SSZ Presentation:
Planner Burhop made a presentation including Article XIX - Steep Slope Ordinance, what is the SSZ, what does the SSZ ordinance do, special tree removal requirements, exempted improvements, steep slope variation process, variation application submittal requirements, standards for SSZ review, staff review - permit or variation and closing report requirements.
Member Hendrick mentioned Subsection A and how were they supposed to know what geotechnical standard was defined in the statute and how to measure that.
Planner Burhop stated they can rely on Engineering and Forestry to provide a memo and if they have concerns they relay that information to the Board. In a unique situation where the Board is not sure or has more questions they can consider a third party review. That is a major cost for the applicant and if it is necessary the Board has the power to request that. The request should be in proportion to what is proposed.
Member Hendrick stated he assumed it would vary based on the property. If Engineering looked at it and said the geotechnical standards are not met, without guidance in the code, he would find it difficult to continue the discussion. He did not know what the terms are defined as in the code.
Chair Cullather stated if they got into that situation not unlike the heritage trees, they could ask the City Engineer to be present at the meeting so they could have a conversation rather than just relying on a memo by the City Engineer.
Planner Burhop stated this might be an option and would check if and when a situation arose.
Member Beck stated it is straight forward language and it is good to have at their disposal.
Councilman Tapia stated they could feel confident that when it comes to specific technical expertise they can request it and it will be provided.
Planner Burhop stated it is incumbent on the applicant to provide proof and evidence that the standards are met. If there are questions the first impetus should be that the applicant needs to provide their technical experts. They have to submit signed and sealed documents and their professional license is on the line. Staff will vet and review the submittals.
Councilman Tapia stated the vetting happens through the professional staff, not through the Board members.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Chair Cullather stated it was a great presentation and hopefully provided some additional knowledge they can refer to.
Councilman Tapia stated this particular session was encouraged by the Board requesting some guidance. He stated they could feel free to keep bringing that up if they feel they need more in depth guidance.
Chair Cullather congratulated Member Bay on his reappointment.
Planner Burhop stated the next meeting was January 20, 2022 and there are four items on the agenda.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Member Beck so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
The Chair stated the Motion passed 6-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:55 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2630&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up