City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Feb. 3.
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, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Members Absent: Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Fawell
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Tapia
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 20, 2022
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2022 meeting. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Member Hendrick stated he had watched the video of the January 20, 2022 meeting. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 6-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 1-19-22
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. NEW BUSINESS:
A. #2022-VAR-007
Property: 1010 Princeton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Michael S. Greenman
Address: 1010 Princeton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
The petitioner and property owner, Michael S. Greenman, 1010 Princeton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1), of the Highland Park Zoning code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.703, as required under the R6 zoning district, to (i) encroach 3.6’ within the required 6.75’ side yard measured from the east property line, on order to construct an addition to an existing single family home.
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan, elevation, other comments and relief requested.
Member Bay stated there is a minimum setback that is being utilized because of the garage.
Planner Burhop stated it is context and if the minimum 6’ was applied to the east the applicant would still need relief.
Member Bay stated the garage appears to be detached and does that still trigger the minimum setback.
Planner Burhop stated yes.
Member Beck stated on page 29 of the packet it shows an existing foundation and asked if they were going to utilize that foundation.
Planner Burhop stated he would defer this to the applicant. The survey indicated the stoop was still there but in the photos it looked like it had been removed.
Member Hendrick asked if a variation was on file for the garage or stoop.
Planner Burhop stated there are no variations on file and the house was built in 1923.
Mr. Michael Greenman, Applicant, made a presentation including background information, photo of flooding in the back that caused damage to structure, setback, foundation and roof remain intact, damaged concrete steps, frost foundation is under gravel, small size of kitchen, enclosing footprint of original structure for a pantry, struggling to bring up to current standards, response to standards: standard #1 - the kitchen is very undersized, they are asking for relief to bring it up to par with today’s standards, adding 44.5 s.f.; standard #2 - unusually small kitchen, house was built 1927, in 1966 they made an addition making the kitchen smaller; standard #3 - home’s proximity to property line on east; standard #5 - not detrimental to public welfare, behind a privacy fence, had conversation with neighbor and they had no concerns; standards #6 & #7 - will not impair air and light; standard #8 - is in harmony with the spirit of zoning code, is reasonable and neighbors have no concerns.
Member Bay asked when they first moved in was the location of the improvement an exit from the kitchen.
Mr. Greenman stated yes.
Member Bay asked if they were going to have a second exit.
Mr. Greenman stated they have a rear patio door on the south and that is the rear exit door. This was probably the rear exit from original home.
Member Bay asked if they still had two exits from the ground floor. Mr. Greenman stated yes.
Member Bay asked about the shared lot line and it appears that part of the house to the east is built on their lot. He asked if there was an easement.
Planner Burhop stated the GIS lines are off and he pulled the survey for the neighbor’s property and what would be their west setback was not dimensioned. It is approximately a 6’ setback.
Member Bay stated the lot lines are not as they appear.
Planner Burhop stated not on the GIS.
Member Hendrick asked if they had talked about interior options and why this was what they had to do.
Mr. Greenman showed a graphic showing the outline of the kitchen and to the north is the HVAC and the biggest obstacle to the north is they have two levels stairway and one goes down and one goes up. There are two sets of stairs so there is no room. On the west side there is the entrance hallway and there are code restrictions for how much you can encroach into a hallway. On the south there are three walls so they have the interior framing. They also have two stories of the original brick. When they built the addition in 1966 they added another wall of wood framing and all of the HVAC for the upstairs is located in this area.
Member Bay stated it would be more expensive to relocate the existing plumbing.
Chair Cullather stated there was an indication in the hardship letter that in addition to a pantry on the inside, there is a gardening shed on the exterior.
Mr. Greenman stated that is a concept they can keep or leave, but because the kitchen is elevated from the ground level it leaves about 3-4’ underneath what would be the new addition’s floor. Since it would not be part of the interior of the house one of the ideas was to provide access from outside so they could put a lawn mower or snow blower in there and use it for storage.
Member Bay stated is was a reasonable ask and it makes sense to have a bigger kitchen. It would be a hardship to have a kitchen that small or relocate it elsewhere. He thought it met the standards and would vote to approve.
Member Zaransky agreed and thought it was a great presentation.
Member Hendrick agreed and stated he had never seen a better presentation. He thought the standards had been met.
Member Beck agreed and thought it was a compelling presentation. The fact they are building on existing foundation is also compelling. He was in favor and thanked the applicant for a great job.
Member Yablon agreed and thought it was a fabulous presentation. She thought all the standards had been met and she would approve it.
Chair Cullather agreed and thought it was a great presentation. These are the types of cases the ZBA is here for. In some of the older neighborhoods lot lines are a little closer and you need the extra wiggle room. He would support the request.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Bay motioned to adopt the order granting the variance as written, seconded by Member Yablon.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 6-0.
VI. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Burhop stated legal training will take place at the March 3, 2022 meeting.
Planner Burhop stated there are three items for the February 17th meeting. One is a continuance and there are two new items.
Planner Burhop introduced Planner Kelsey Fawell.
Planner Fawell stated she had worked for the Village of Bensenville and was excited to be in Highland Park.
Member Beck asked about the time for the legal training on March 3rd.
Planner Burhop stated it is after the agenda items.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to adjourn. Member Beck so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick. Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 6-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:20 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2641&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up