Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met March 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 Fawell to call the roll.

Members Present: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather Members Absent: None

Planner Fawell took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Fawell

Student Rep.: Bach

Council Liaison: Tapia

Corporate Counsel: Martinez, Passman

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

February 17, 2022

Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2022 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Putzel.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 2-16-22

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. NEW BUSINESS:

A. #2021-VAR-013

Property: 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Jonathan Fleisher

Address: 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner and property owner, Jonathan Fleisher of 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, represented by Calvin Bernstein, Attorney, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(11), of the Highland Park zoning code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.1903(A), as required under the R5 zoning district, to (i) encroach with the Steep Slope Zone (SSZ) by a maximum dimension of 14’, in order to construct a detached accessory structure with the SSZ on a property with a single family home.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial photo, site plan, site photos, proposed site plan, proposed elevation plan, Public Works Dept. and Planning Division comments, other comments, Section 150.1204(A)(11) Standards, Section 150.1903(C) Standards, requested relief, and topographic survey.

Member Yablon stated she had a possible conflict and asked if this was the appropriate time to disclose it.

Mr. Passman stated now would be the appropriate time.

Member Yablon stated in the past in 18 months she had performed zoning related work for the Lighthouse Co. which is the company that drafted the steep slope ordinance review as part of the Linden packet. She did not believe this warranted a recusal nor does Council. She asked if anyone had an issue with this.

Member Bay stated in looking at the memo from Public Works, other than what is stated in the memo he asked if there was anything specific Public Works objected to.

Planner Burhop stated he could only restate what is in the packet.

Member Bay stated the applicant was advised by the City that they did not need a permit. He asked if he had information regarding this.

Planner Burhop mentioned the hardship letter from the applicant and it says “the Fleishers sought out advice from the City and they were advised they did not need a permit to construct the playhouse.” Staff response is included in the memo under the section Background and Construction - “the applicant states in their attached letter of situation and hardship they sought advice from the City and were advised they did not need a permit to construct the playhouse.” In the staff memo it states “the applicant’s building permit which was received by the City on December 3, 2020 characterized the structure as a playhouse. Per the City’s building code, playhouses do not require permits. City staff did not realize that the area of the structure was 320 s.f. and staff did not know the intent was to construct in the SSZ. The overall size and characteristics of the structure challenge the notion it should be considered an exempt playhouse. Regardless, the zoning code’s yard setback and steep slope provisions still apply even when a building permit is not required. Staff noted the building will have electrical features that appear not to have been communicated to staff at the time and this work does require a building permit.”

Member Bay asked if there is a known maximum area when a playhouse crosses the line and becomes something other than a playhouse.

Planner Burhop stated he was not aware and there is nothing in the zoning code defining that.

Member Hendrick asked if anyone from Public Works was present for this meeting. meeting.

Planner Burhop stated no one from Pubic Works was present.

Member Hendrick stated when they have a heritage tree application they like to have the Forester present. He thought this kind of application would warrant having an engineer present especially when they are in opposition to it.

Member Beck mentioned the plat of survey and it shows an existing shed. He asked if it was there when they started construction.

Planner Burhop stated that was a question for the applicant.

Member Bay stated he echoed Member Hendrick about someone from Public Works being present. He asked when it says it has been built, but not finished, did they stop awaiting tonight’s outcome.

Planner Burhop stated he understood the structure is not finished and they want to finish it. There is a violation history and they are here to consider the variation. The applicant did submit a permit and the City cannot administratively approve the permit because it encroaches into the SSZ. They can tear it down or they can ask for relief.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 484 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL, Attorney, stated it is a unique property over 1.3 acres and most of it is in the ravine. The project began as a Covid project by Nate Fleisher. There was some miscommunication between the Fleishers and the City. They intended it to be a temporary structure and they are seeking an order allowing them to complete it and to encroach into the SSZ.

Mr. Nate Fleisher, 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated he is in the design and architecture school at Syracuse. When Covid stated the school was shut down and they went on line. He wanted to pursue this line of work. He worked with a carpenter on weekends building a playhouse to test his skills.

Mr. Jonathan Fleisher, 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated they wanted to go through why they went with the City to build this, who they spoke to, and why they put it where did they did. They did not intentionally put it in the SSZ and did not know about it. They do not want to harm the ravine. Ms. Fleisher will speak to the hardship and why they put it where they did.

Ms. Lisa Fleisher, 1244 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated they are trying to be mindful of the neighbors. The property is 1.3 acres and a lot of it is ravine and there is no back yard. There is a side yard with some table land. In order to still have open space they tucked it into the side yard and still have open yard. They contacted the City and looked up everything they could to try and figure out how to do this. They were given misinformation and the City said they needed a permit and then they did not need a permit. When the City contacted them they asked about the side, front and back setbacks and the SSZ was never mentioned. The objection letter is not from a direct neighbor and not close enough to be notified and they have structure on the ravine. They had professionals come out who stated the structure is not causing erosion and had soil borings performed. They took steps to make sure it was in compliance. They encouraged Nate and he had something to look forward to. It is a unique property and they thought it was the best possible place and it would not be inconveniencing the neighbors.

Mr. John Hardy, 699 Park Ave., Highland Park, IL, Builder, stated people do not understand the importance of the counter at the Building Dept. The access of being able to go there with your survey and ask questions was shut off. He suffered in trying to get answers for different projects he is working on. It impacts the day-to-day operation of a business let alone a novice homeowner trying to accomplish something in the Covid season. This was not intentionally done without a permit, but by accident. He thought they should look at the total situation. If they went to the jobsite and saw where this is sitting on the ravine you would realize this is not like normal ravines. There is not a lot of steepness and it goes to a flat table land inside the ravine. He thought is deserved special consideration. He went to the City and talked to the engineers and they voiced concern if they decided to let the Fleishers have this then everyone will want to do to it. He disagreed because the only reason they are in this situation is that the City was not able to give the proper knowledge to owner to do the project properly.

Mr. Bernstein stated in order to grant the variance they need to apply the standards. There was nothing nefarious and it appears it was the result of difficulties in construction with a novice builder. The City has indicated there are two choices, either remove the structure or move it or obtain a variance to allow the structure to remain. He stated he would go through the standards. When he was retained he wanted to make sure it was the right location. He contacted John Shopika of Shopika & Assoc. who are a coastal engineers and have handled almost every project in Highland Park that has any bluff issues. He stated if he was going to recommend any area for this project he would recommend exactly where it is. It is a gradual slope and there is no back yard. There is a patio in back of the house and the only area open for enjoyment is the side yard to the north. They contacted Alan Levine, a civil engineer, to investigate the property to see if he would recommend this location. If it stays in this location there would not be any negative impact on the steep slope or on the ravine. The report is in the packet and states he does not anticipate any problems and he believes this is the proper location to construct such a project. Regarding the reasonable return, this is a large lot and not much table land. There is not an area where they can enjoy the outside. Without being able to use this sliver of land they cannot get a reasonable return from this property. Most of the property is unusable as it is in the ravine. The neighbor who is most impacted has indicated his support. Regarding the hardship, it is a unique situation that impacts this lot vs. other lots in the district. As the one objecting letter states, it is not the lots in the ravine, it is the lots in the R5 district. This property is unique based on the configuration, two thirds of the lot is in the ravine and the location on the block is driving the hardship. The playhouse was sited as the consultants would have recommended if they were around when it was constructed. It is a small encroachment into a very large ravine in the back. As the property functions and with the location of the steep slope, there is very little table land to enjoy. This creates a hardship that impacts this property vs. other properties in the district. The civil engineering report states the structure will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or injurious to other properties. It will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. There is a separate set of standards they discussed in their letter of situation. The civil engineers opined they do not anticipate any problems as a result of the structure and based on the soil type and borings the structure will not cause a hazard to the existing bluff. The weight will not impact the ravine. The applicant has agreed, if approved, they will hire a civil engineer to crate new piers so the actual building would be in compliance. They would agree to a condition that they retain a civil engineer to make the building make code complaint and to ensure that anything that needs to be done to mitigate any issues would be implemented by the applicant. Regarding the City’s memo of February 28, 2022, the engineer is opining on certain legal conclusions on what is a hardship and what is not. He thought this was odd because he had never seen the Engineering Dept. do that before. They stated the shed was illegally constructed and that is the purpose of this meeting is to try to get the zoning to make it legal. They recognize that if the ZBA denies a request for a variation that the structure will have to be removed. They will bring the property into compliance and do not want a structure that is illegal. It is a structure that is up and the building permit is pending the decision by the ZBA. Based on that, he did not believe it is an illegal structure. Granting this variance would not open the doors to other properties making a similar request. Many times the ZBA will come back and say each application stands on its own set of facts. One application does not create a precedent for other applications. The steep slope is different, the soil is different, the location of the property is different and there are so many different things that are different for each case. For the City Engineer to say this will open the door to an avalanche of cases that smacks in the face of what the ZBA does. The ZBA considers what is in front of them. The City Engineer states the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. He did not know how he can make that legal conclusion when he has not heard the testimony of the witnesses or a complete record of the proceeding. They are not here to defend that and test the veracity of the witnesses. He did not know how they can make that legal conclusion that a hardship is not shown. This is a quasi legal proceeding and the ZBA is making legal conclusions as they apply the standards. There are numerous letters of support and one letter of objection from someone who lives in a glass house 300’ away and has a structure in the ravine. Their entire house is probably in the SSZ. The have a civil engineer saying it will not negatively impact the ravine and he did not know how the neighbor who is 300’ away is seeing erosion as a result of this structure. The civil engineer is saying this is not happening. The unique circumstance standard goes to the zoning district rather than properties on the ravine. Whatever the ZBA decides they understand they will apply the standards and make a decision and they will respect that.

Mr. Hardy stated the hardship was also that the Building Dept. was not operating how it normally does for the community and Covid was restricting its availability to the public.

Member Bay was reading from letter of situation and hardship and it says the Fleishers children decided they wanted to build a play house. He asked if there was more than one child involved.

Mr. Fleisher stated have three sons and Nate spearheaded it and had a carpenter help him. Mr. Bay asked if he was away at college.

Mr. Fleisher stated he is at college and wants to finish the project.

Member Bay asked if it was their intention to use this as a playhouse.

Ms. Fleisher stated the opposing letter stated they had young kids and this was going to be a playhouse. They never stated this and it was to be another structure where he could go and hang out. He is interested in design and building and it started when they were home during Covid and they were really excited about it. They were excited they had a project to do together.

Mr. Bernstein stated but for SSZ, this meets all the other code and setback requirements of the code. This would be an additional structure for their kids. Nate is a freshman in college and still coming home. This is temporary and they have indicated they will remove the structure as the kids age. They intend to use the structure as an adjunct play area.

Member Bay stated the letter refers to it several times as a playhouse. It seems like more of a accessory structure and he was thinking if the children are college age or older and he did not think they were in need of a playhouse. They mentioned the hardship was the topography of the land. He asked if it is a hardship not to have a playhouse.

Mr. Bernstein stated it was not the use that drives the hardship. It is driven by the land and the way it lays out. There is nothing in the code that says that they have to show a hardship for use for the structure. If they moved 10’ they could build it as a matter of right. He did not think what it is used for is relevant. The consultants said this is the proper location. It is tucked away and has the least impact on the neighbor to the north and meets the standards regarding not negatively impacting the ravine. This was started when Nate was a junior in high school he thought he would be done in a couple of months. The project has dragged out. It was originally intended as a playhouse for use by the family.

Member Bay asked if this was to be used as a storage shed would he be making the same argument that it should be allowed to existing in that location.

Mr. Bernstein stated yes.

Member Bay asked if it would be a hardship not to have a storage shed. Mr. Bernstein stated the use is not relevant.

Member Yablon stated they have talked about it not being a permanent structure but from the photos there is insulation and electricity. She asked about the permanence of the structure.

Mr. Bernstein stated there will be no plumbing. He asked Mr. Fleisher about the useful life of the structure.

Mr. Fleisher stated if they sell the house they would take it down. They want to finish it and be able to use it. If a buyer did not like it they would take it down.

Member Yablon stated when they grant a variance it is for the life of the property. Mr. Fleisher stated it would enhance the property.

Member Hendrick questioned the hardship standard. It is a steep slope and is unique in the R5.

Mr. Bernstein stated two-thirds of the lot is in the steep slope in the ravine which limits the amount of table land. There is no usable rear yard and the only area they can use is a side yard. They are trying to maximize the side yard and have the structure somewhere on the property. The consultant is saying this the logical place to put it to get a reasonable return.

Member Hendrick thought that was a better clarification of the hardship. When he heard the original presentation it sounded like if you have a steep slope in the R5 that is a hardship. That cannot be the case and the additional context just provided makes more sense.

Mr. Bernstein stated he was trying to say the objection letter states every house on the ravine could have the same hardship. The standard is this house vs. all other houses in the R5.

Member Beck stated on the updated survey they show the side yard setback of approximately 30’. He asked if accessory structures are subject to that.

Planner Burhop stated it depends on the type of accessory structure. For this type yes, the structure would be subject to the side yard requirement.

Member Beck stated on the plat of survey it shows a 20’ x 16’ shed. He asked if there was a existing shed.

Mr. Bernstein stated it is the same structure.

Member Beck stated of the argument of the Engineering Dept. is going unanswered because no one is present to speak to that. He asked if they should continue until someone is here from the Engineering Dept. to speak to their objections.

Planner Burhop stated in terms of the Building Dept. and their response and if the question is about history and who said what, he would refer to the staff memo that the background on construction was vetted by the Director of Community Development including both the Planning and Building divisions.

Member Bay stated he thought Planner Burhop had said he wanted to read something into the record.

Chair Cullather asked about the new foundation and piers that need to be constructed. He asked what it entails on an existing structure to insure the installation does not disrupt the SSZ.

Mr. Bernstein stated one of the reasons it was dragged out is that they went back and forth with the Engineering Dept. trying to figure if the existing piers were sufficient. They made the determination they are not. Instead of placing the piers without knowing if they have the right to have the structure there, they have a proposal in the packet for the civil engineer to the work so they know how much it will cost. They have not done the work because they do not know if the structure will be here.

Mr. Hardy stated they would screw it into the ground until they reach a certain amount of pounds per square foot. A typical foundation is pounds per square foot. Until they reach a certain amount of torque into the ground they can make it as strong to any standard. The anchors would replace the piers. If it takes 15’ for them to go down to reach the strength they need they can go down 15’, 20’ or 25’ so they can make any type of structural strength they need.

Mr. Bernstein stated that can be done in conjunction with the civil engineer.

Mr. Hardy stated ___________ Restoration does all the civil engineering as part of the process.

Chair Cullather asked about extending electricity to the playhouse.

Mr. Hardy stated they can get a permit to run the electricity.

Chair Cullather asked if there were plans to heat or air condition the space. Mr. Fleisher stated there are no plans for that.

Member Hendrick asked why the structure could not have gone closer to the house.

Ms. Fleisher stated it is a side yard and there was no area to move it closer to the house. The were trying to be mindful of the neighbors and try to tuck it so it would be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors. Bringing it closer would also be more visual from Linden which is the front of the street.

Mr. Bernstein stated there is interior space that makes it difficult to tuck it closer.

Mr. Fleisher stated they want to maximize the limited side yard they have. By moving it forward it would take out that space out.

Member Hendrick stated the standard says it cannot serve as a convenience. He asked if it could have been moved closer to the house and it could have been done by right.

Mr. Bernstein stated there is a terrace there and it would have made the project more expensive because they would have had to redo the hardscape. It was not just a matter of convenience, but a matter of finance. They were trying to tuck it so they would still have some outdoor space.

Member Yablon asked to install the new footings would they have to move the house to a different location, install the footings and the put the house back on top.

Mr. Hardy stated the cut the floor open and go from the inside.

Vice Chair Putzel stated they appreciate being respectful of the neighbors because if the neighbors were upset and if it did not meet the zoning variance that would be another issue. If they have to move it would the neighbors have a problem with it. Would it be an issue with the neighbors.

Ms. Fleisher stated they have not asked them, but would imagine they would not to be too happy about it. The way their house is situated and the structure is situated they do not stare directly at it. If they move it they will stare at it.

Vice Chair Putzel stated it could affect the value of their property.

Ms. Fleisher stated they are trying to avoid impacting them.

Mr. Bernstein thanked the Board for their time.

Planner Burhop read two emails into record forwarded from Cal Bernstein from Mr. & Mrs. Hannick and the second from Ms. Liz Salinas. Both emails support the project.

Member Bay stated it is an unfortunate situation and a misunderstanding and no one did anything intentionally misleading. It is probably not a bad thing but he did not see it met the standards. It can be built in other places as a matter of right. He did not see it as a hardship in not having a playhouse or accessory structure. The SSZ and standards are there for a reason and this may not be an engineering problem. It does not meet the standards and he could not cannot support the application.

Member Zaransky stated this was tough one and the way they have to look at it is regardless of how they got here if it were a clean slate and looking at the standards how would they vote. They had the best intentions and he agreed with Member Bay it does not meet the standards.

Member Hendrick stated he echoed what Mr. Bernstein said about the memo from Public Works. He agreed about coming to legal conclusions and he thought if the City is going to oppose something they should have a representative here. He agreed with Members Zaransky and Bay and it is unfortunate situation. He understood the mitigating factors but did not think the standards had been met. He would not vote in favor.

Member Yablon stated it was an amazing project. She did not think the standards had been met and could not support the application.

Member Beck agreed and stated the standards had not been met. He had issue about no one from the City being here to explain their position.

Vice Chair Putzel echoed Members Bay and Hendrick regarding the City representatives not being present. This is not the first time they have dealt with this when it comes to the SSZ. She commended Nate and thought it was a very sophisticated project. She thought

they need to think about why the ZBA exists and if variances are not met is there a reason the ZBA is here. They need to remember that reasonable return does not have to be monetary and enjoying the property can yield a reasonable return. Whether or not this is a temporary structure is moot, it can be moved if needed. If they were to put it within the area that falls within the variance already they would have an issue wit the neighbor. She was in support and did not think playhouse was the correct word. It is an impressive project and a productive use of Nate’s time. She would support it.

Chair Cullather stated he could not support it and sided with the other members. It is a great use of time and an educational experience. He thought that there are other alternates for where it could be placed and maybe they would be before the Board but for not as big of an ask. They have dealt with temporary structures before. This does not have that feel of something that is going to be temporary. It will be fastened to rock and it makes it hard to argue it will be temporary. He cannot support the application.

Mr. Bernstein asked to consult with his client. He stated there are two sets of standards being applied to the matter and asked if they could bifurcate the vote to see if they meet the SSZ standards and the zoning standards.

Mr. Passman stated they have a draft approval order and if the Board granted approval they would be done. They do not have a draft denial order. If the Board denies this it would not be the final vote anyway. The motion would be to direct the drafting of the denial order for adoption at a future meeting. He did not think they needed to bifurcate and ultimately the Board approves or denies based on its findings on the standards. He had heard enough comment and did not think it was necessary.

Mr. Bernstein stated there are two sets of standards which is a little out of the norm. He was trying to make a clear record of what the vote is.

Mr. Passman stated what the vote will be ultimately is to either approval or deny. There is no obligation to do that.

Chair Cullather asked how the Board wanted to move forward.

Member Bay motioned that a denial order be drafted and voted on. Member Hendrick seconded.

Chair Cullather stated that was a motion to draft an order of denial.

Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to direct staff to prepare a denial order. He recommended a second motion to continue to a date certain.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather

Nays: Putzel

Motion passed 6-0

Member Bay motioned to continue to March 17, 2022. Seconded by Member Hendrick. Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

Planner Burhop stated this will be continued to March 17, 2022 and notice is actual.

Member Beck asked if they could request someone from the City be present at the next meeting to answer questions about the permitting process.

Planner Burhop stated he would pass this request along to the Director.

Councilman Tapia stated he did connect with the City Manager to see if they could contact some one while they were talking but that was not possible. The City Manager noted she will see what can be done. He was confident some one will be at the next meeting. He agreed with Covid and the back and forth and there was a misunderstanding and it was no one’s direct fault. It was a dilemma and not an easy decision. This was a conflict between head and heart.

B. #2022-VAR-006

Property: 3082 Greenwood Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Eran L. and Robin B. Cohen

Address: 3082 Greenwood Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioners and property owners, Eran L. and Robin B. Cohen of 3082 Greenwood Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, request by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(4) of the Highland Park zoning code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.703.3, as required

under the R5 zoning district, to (i) exceed the maximum required 31% (3,720 s.f.) Floor Area Ratio by 5.7% to 36.7% (4,400.95 s.f.) to allow an addition of a deck and screened in porch.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan, FAR review, existing photos, proposed elevations, other comments and requested relief.

Member Bay asked if the are saying that technically they not eligible for the bonus FAR because they already exceed the FAR by their newly submitted measurements and that makes them ineligible for the bonus FAR.

Planner Burhop stated they are eligible for bonus the FAR except the request exceeds it by 0.07%.

Member Bay stated even though it was permitted by the City there was a mismeasurement and it was non-conforming.

Planner Burhop stated the house has to be at least seven years old and they cannot have any certificate of occupancy for any addition within the last seven years. The proposal cannot need any bulk relief for height, setback or SSZ and the work cannot qualify as a demolition of the structure. They have to be within the bonus FAR allowance and they

exceed it by 0.07%. They would have to file a restrictive covenant. The would be eligible for the bonus FAR if they reduced the request by 0.07%.

Member Bay asked how many square feet is in the ask.

Planner Burhop stated 283 s.f.

Member Bay asked if that came out to 0.07%.

Planner Burhop stated the structure they want do is 283 s.f. is 2.4% floor area ratio. They are over the bonus allowance by 0.07%. The request of 2.4% and if it was reduced to 1.7% then they could use the bonus FAR. The square footage is 80’.

Member Bay asked how much smaller would it have to be for them to get below 0.07%. Planner Burhop stated 80 s.f.

Chair Cullather asked if they knew why the City records say 47.16 s.f. and their architect says 41.17 s.f. He asked where is the difference.

Planner Burhop stated he did not know if a mistake was made when it was permitted in 2005 or 2006. The permit says it was properly approved.

Chair Cullather stated if you already exceed you are not supposed to get the bonus. Member Hendrick asked if they have to stick with the number they submitted.

Planner Burhop stated staff made that recommendation to the applicant and this is the applicant’s application. Staff did make them aware of this ahead of time.

Mr. David Berryhill, 395 W. Northwest Hwy., Palatine, IL, Architect, stated they responded to the standards completely. Regarding the calculations, he personally did not do the numbers, but his staff did. They are accurate numbers and they were not aware of a different number originally. These are the numbers from their math not based on any assumptions coming into it. Mr. Cohen will address the discrepancy.

Mr. Eran Cohen, Applicant, stated they moved to Highland Park 22 years ago and have been the Highlands. They found this house which was a spec house and they were not involved in the design. They have been there for 15 years and have raised three kids. Covid happened and the kids were socializing in garages and outside. They want a place for them to hang out. They have not done any addition work to the house since they moved in. They wanted the porch and decided it was an easy one and added the 200 s.f. to the existing 3720 s.f. which has been in his appraisals for the last 15 years and they are under the bonus rule. They spent money on the plans and designs and came to get the permit. The architect found the change in square footage from what he thought they owned and created the need for this process. It is not a large porch and the 80 s.f. is deminimus relative to the porch area. No neighbors have contested it. They did not know they were in a house that is not the same as the plans submitted 15 years ago.

Member Yablon asked if the new porch will be flush with the deck. Mr. Cohen stated yes.

Mr. Berryhill stated he assumed it meant not a step up or down.

Planner Burhop stated it is roughly in line with the side of the home and approximately with the back of the deck.

Mr. Berryhill stated the screened porch does not exceed the current deck.

Member Hendrick stated this screams deminimus and thought it should be approved. He thought the hardship is the square footage being off. They would be able to do this by right had they followed the City. He thought it met the standards and would support the application.

Member Zaransky stated he supported this and it was totally reasonable. He asked why they did not get another opinion on the square footage and decided to go this route.

Mr. Cohen stated they want the deck and it has opened up a Pandora’s box. They have been waiting a long time for the designs and process. He did not realize what he was doing and thought they were asking for a small variance. It is fair ask. He wanted to get it right. He did not know better and thought it was the quickest path.

Member Zaransky stated he was giving them the option. If they wanted to continue for two weeks to get another opinion and re-confirm it was an option.

Mr. Cohen asked why he would do that.

Member Zaransky stated he would not need a variance.

Mr. Cohen asked if he was better served without a variance.

Member Zaransky stated he was just throwing it out there.

Member Beck stated he had nothing to add and was in favor of the application.

Member Yablon stated the standards had been met and she was in favor of the application.

Member Bay stated he thought they were better served with a variance because it is based on the truth as they believe it to be. If this ever comes back they are making their best effort to make sure it is accurate. It is interesting in that if their numbers are accurate they are not eligible for the bonus FAR and the request would he higher than it is. If the old numbers were accurate they would not need to be here at all. It is a deminimus request and he would support the application.

Vice Chair Putzel echoed Member Bay and stated she would approve.

Chair Cullather thanked Planner Burhop, Mr. Cohen and Mr. Berryhill for their presentations and thought the request should be granted.

Mr. Cohen asked if he waited two weeks what would happen.

Member Bay stated the fact that he is saying their house is larger may affect the basis on which the assessor will evaluate the house and could raise the property taxes.

Mr. Cohen stated if he hired someone and they come back and say it is 3720 s.f. not only does he not need a variance, but he does not receive an increased tax bill.

Planner Burhop stated they are not in position to advise Mr. Cohen. The permit had stated “X” square feet and he could resubmit or not.

Member Hendrick stated people come in to request to have a hearing and it goes negatively and they come back and revisit the plans make it so to do it by right. That option is open and it does not mean it is denied and they can revisit it to see if they can do it by right.

Planner Burhop stated if they chose to continue and resubmit floor area numbers and they did not need the variation they could withdraw the application and proceed with the bonus FAR.

Mr. Cohen asked if they continued he would have to reappear on March 17th.

Chair Cullather yes and they can continue. He knows what the count is and they need four votes to move forward.

Mr. Berryhill asked if anyone on staff reviewed the numbers and if they looked correct or incorrect.

Planner Burhop stated he briefly discussed the issue with the senior examiner and the applicant has to submit their floor area numbers and if it is approved they have to submit that again for permit and the licensed professional has to submit signed and sealed plans.

Chair Cullather asked Mr. Cohen if he wanted a continuance or a vote. Mr. Cohen stated he wanted to proceed.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Hendrick motioned to approve the order as presented in the packet, seconded by Member Bay.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

C. #2022-VAR-010

Property: 511 Clavey Court, Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Alan Freeman

Address: 511 Clavey Court, Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner and property owner, Alan Freeman, 511 Clavey Court, Highland Park, IL 60035, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(1) of the Highland Park zoning code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.703, as required under the R4 zoning district, to (i) encroach 2.8’ within the required 40’ front yard from the west property line, (ii) encroach 3.8’ into the required established 41.07’ front yard from the west property line, (iii) encroach 6.7’ within the required 22.23’ side yard from the south property line, in order to construct additions to an existing single family home.

Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, existing site plan, proposed site plan, proposed site plan - first and second floors, front yard analysis, EBS analysis, side yard analysis, proposed elevations, other comments, flood plain and requested relief.

Member Bay stated they have a structure that exists and is somewhat non-conforming and they are asking to build straight up on the non-conforming part necessitating a variance. They are not increasing the footprint and are not asking for any further relief other than what is built on a non-conforming structure.

Planner Fawell stated they are not exacerbating the current encroachments. The first floor addition where they are proposing to remove the greenhouse is increasing the footprint, but not increasing the encroachment into the side yard.

Member Bay stated most of the greenhouse addition would be within the required setbacks.

Planner Fawell stated yes it is just shy of 9 s.f.

Member Bay stated whatever increase is actually a confirming use.

Planner Fawell stated yes.

Member Zaransky stated this was approved in 2016 but was not done within the 12- month period and needs to come before the Board again.

Planner Fawell stated it was 2016 and a similar project. The permit was not obtained with a year of approval.

Member Zaransky asked if they were the same owners.

Planner Fawell stated yes.

Chair Cullather asked what the County Assessor’s record in 2017 for. Planner Fawell stated there was an addition done after 2016.

Mr. Omar Gutierrez, 1209 Monroe, Evanston, IL, Architect, stated they are trying to be sensitive to the architecture by continuing the lines and it is the most logical location. The location creates a unique hardship and the ideal place for the bedrooms is on the side. This is a home is located on a half-acre lot that has three bedrooms. They have a need for space and it is a necessity. They did a small addition that was less expensive and as time passed the need has arisen again. This is similar to 2016 and they intend submit for permit soon. They need to provide draining and grading plans and have engaged a civil engineer who is working on it.

Mr. Alan Freeman, Applicant, stated when they did the addition in 2016 they had to make the decision where to spend their money. The kids were younger and now they are looking to add more space and are asking for the ability to do that.

Ms. Laurel Freeman, Applicant, stated she agreed.

Planner Fawell stated there were no call or emails received.

Member Hendrick asked why relief is needed. They were already non-confirming and it is staying within the same footprint.

Planner Fawell stated the applicant is not proposing to increase the encroachments, but they are increasing the bulk of the encroachment.

Member Hendrick stated the standards are addressed in the packet on page 99 and it is already non-conforming. He would support the application.

Member Beck stated he was in favor.

Member Bay stated it was straight forward and it makes sense to do an addition above something that already exists. He thought the standards had been met and was in favor of the variation.

Member Yablon agreed and thought the standards had been met.

Member Zaransky stated he was in favor.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed and was in favor.

Chair Cullather stated he was in favor.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Bay motioned to approve the draft approval order, seconded by Member Yablon.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

D. #2022-VAR-011

Property: 935 Burton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Stanley J. Wallach

Address: 935 Burton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner Stanley J. Wallach, 935 Burton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, submitted on behalf of the ownership Chicago Title Land Trust Company as Trustee under the provisions of a certain Trust Agreement dated July 6, 2020 and known as Trust Number 8002383664, of 10S. LaSalle St., Suite 2570, Chicago, IL 60603, request by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(5), of the Highland Park zoning code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.707(D)(1), as required under the R6 zoning district, to (i) exceed the 30% coverage limit by 23% to a proposed 53% rear yard coverage in the required 25’ rear yard, in order to construct a detached garage.

Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan, proposed elevations, other comments and requested relief.

Mr. Stanley Wallach, Applicant, stated it is a 100-year old house and he has owned the house for a number of years. A friend of his owned the home in the 1970s and he said the existing garage was there for 45 years. It has outlived its use and they want to tear it down and replace it with a two-car garage. They are looking to replace an 11’ x 19’ garage with a 20’ x 20’ two-car garage. There are a lot of smaller lots in this area of Ravinia and 40’ x 140’ is common. It is also common to have a two-car garage in these 40’ x 140’ lots in Highland Park.

Member Bay stated part of the reason they have regulations regarding how much of a rear yard can be covered has to do with the difference between pervious and impervious surfaces as it relates to the drainage. He asked if any concern about exceeding the coverage of the rear yard.

Mr. Wallach stated there is a natural slope downward toward the tracks. The issue of the water flow was addressed by Danley’s.

Ms. Tracey Avis, Danley’s Garage, stated they have topographic and grading surveys indicating the leveling of the property.

Mr. Peter Lopacowitz, Danley’s Garage, stated they supply everything necessary for the permit for the grading. If there is a water issue they could add gutters to focus the water into a certain area vs. going to all four sides.

Member Bay asked as part of the permit issuance process the City makes a review of any potential impacts on drainage.

Planner Fawell confirmed this and they take into account flood plains and SSZs and none were flagged for this request.

Member Zaransky asked if it is known to the reviewer that this was approved by the ZBA.

Planner Fawell stated when the ZBA grants a variation it is sent to the applicable city department so when the applicant submits a permit it is not flagged because it does not meet the zoning code. They are made aware of it.

Vice Chair Putzel stated it is straight forward and they talk about having two-car garages all the time. She did not have a problem and would support the application.

Member Bay stated it is a reasonable request and the standards had been met.

Member Hendrick agreed and the applicant had submitted a detailed letter explaining why they have met the standards.

Member Zaransky agreed.

Member Yablon agreed and appreciated that 20’ x 20’ is minimal for a two-car garage and the ask is small. She would support the application.

Member Beck agreed and had nothing to add.

Chair Cullather agreed and maybe the City needs to examine the rear yard coverage issue. He would support the application.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order as presented, seconded by Member Bay.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

VI. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is March 17th. There is one item on the agenda. Legal training will take place on March 17th.

Planner Burhop stated he did not know when they would meet in person.

Member Hendrick asked if the meeting is at the same time.

Planner Burhop stated the public meeting it at 7:30 PM and then the legal training.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

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

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 7-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:40 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2661&Inline=True