Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met April 7.

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, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Members Absent: Yablon

Planner Fawell took the roll and declared a quorum present.

Staff Present: Burhop, Fawell, Miller

Student Rep.: Bach

Council Liaison: Tapia

Corporate Counsel: None

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 17, 2022

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

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Abstain: Zaransky

Motion passed 5-0.

III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 3-23-22

IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None

V. OLD BUSINESS:

A. #2021-VAR-039

Property: 2340 Maple Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R4 & Lakefront Density & Character Overlay Zone

Appellant: Stephen Holmes

Address: 2340 Maple Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioners and property owners and undivided 50% interest to Stephen J. Homes, or his successor(s), but as Trustee of the Stephen J. Holmes Trust dated January 14, 2021; and an individual 50% interest to Barbara A. Holmes, or her successor(s), not individually, but as Trustee of Barbara A. Holmes Trust January 14, 2021, of 2340 Maple Lane, Highland Park, IL 60035, request by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1) and Section 150.1204(A)(4) of the Highland Park Zoning Code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.105(A), Section 150.711(A), Section 150.703, Section 150.703.3(A), and Section 150.707(F) , as required under the R4 zoning district, to (i) encroach 18.5’ within the Established Building Setback of 47.4’, measured from the east property line along Maple Lane, (ii) encroach 11.1’ within the R4 required front yard of 40’, measured from the east property line along Maple Lane, (iii) encroach 5’ within the R4 9.8’ side yard requirement, measured from the north property line, and (iv) exceed the maximum allowed 3,732 s.f. floor area requirement by 411.43 s.f. of floor area, in order to construct an attached garage addition onto a single family home.

Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, update, landscape exhibit, architectural/elevation exhibit, project background, aerial view, SSZ, new site plan, old site plan, photo, new elevation/rendering, EBS, FAR review, other comments and requested relief.

Member Zaransky asked if between the first and second iterations was it a two-car garage or did the applicant change to a one-car garage.

Planner Burhop stated it was originally a two-car garage and meant to be a two-car garage which is more spacious. They reduced the dimensions from 470 s.f. to 360 s.f.

Mr. Steve Holmes, Applicant, stated he presented documentation at the last meeting and going around the room there was a feeling he had made a good case. He recapped the evidence and documentation and the Board was feeling good about his case. They requested he come back with more detailed drawings. The process exists because the code cannot apply to everyone and there are cases with a lot of considerations to be taken. There was a lot of data at the last meeting and they talked about a two-car garages homes in the area. There is a handful of one-car garages. He mentioned the hardship standard and he spent time talking about the unique characteristics of the property and there is no other alternate place. There are only nine one-car homes in the north lakefront district and his home is the only one out of 292 homes where there is a one-car garage and there is nothing he can do about it. It is a unique situation. They are smaller and consumed by a ravine. The house was built in 1924 and pre-dates the zoning enforcement. The situation has nothing to do with him or previous owners and the code was laid on top of it. The home next door is the only one that can see his house and he spent time addressing what he was planning to do. The extension is 28’ from the nearest window of that home. There is a carport on the neighbor’s yard and is far away from where wants to build. It will not be detrimental to the neighborhood and the curb appeal will be stronger. They are upgrading the house on the frontage including the driveway and it will be replaced with high end material. As you are driving down Maple the extension will obfuscate the house next door and it will a preferential view to what is there. There are five houses in the development and every property is a different architecture and oriented in different directions. It is not a typical neighborhood with all the houses in a row. He showed the site layout, patio, proposed landscape plan, stone driveway and walk, new berm with plantings, current side elevation, plantings around garage will provide separation, two windows on north and south, garage is 18’ deep x 20’ wide, building as small as possible, current and proposed front elevation, high end doors, stone driveway, current side elevation, proposed side elevation with trees, it will not be a visual detriment.

Vice Chair Putzel stated it was a thorough presentation and in looking through the packet there were issues with the neighbors. She asked if he had conversations with the neighbors who are opposing this.

Mr. Holmes stated the neighbor does not want to see it and he has tried to make as many accommodations as he could. They have talked and there are no hard feelings, but a difference of opinion. He wants to maintain friendly relations and he will do whatever he can to make it as appealing as possible. It will not be a detriment to his home. He would rather look at a garage than seeing cars parked outside. They have had conversations about this and doing landscaping on the streets.

Member Bay asked if they had a chance to look at the new submissions from 2350 Maple.

Mr. Holmes stated he looked at them.

Member Bay stated he was looking at a picture of the first floor kitchen submitted by the neighbor.

Mr. Holmes stated the second floor photo was not totally accurate and it is almost like the camera is at the ceiling. They are transom windows and are up quite high. He did not think it would be an encumbrance to light coming through it. The extension will be 1’ shorter.

Member Bay stated the proposed structure would go further east more and would be more visible from the transom windows.

Mr. Holmes stated yes. The view from the first floor den looks into the carport and is 28’ away from the structure. The canopy roof sits outside the windows which blocks the sun.

Member Bay asked if he had been the neighbor’s house to see how the view would be affected.

Mr. Holmes stated with the previous owner. The next picture is the view from the kitchen. The new garage will be tucked in 3.5’.

Member Bay asked if the 2350 house is lower than his house.

Mr. Holmes stated it sits on the ravine.

Member Bay asked what is going to happen with the existing garage.

Mr. Holmes stated some storage and one of cars will not fit. The right bay is intended to encroach into the existing garage by about 4’.

Member Bay stated asked if thought had been given to removing a portion of the existing garage to widen the space between the houses.

Mr. Holmes stated it would make the existing garage skinnier as well. It is possible and would be a big structural project.

Chair Cullather mentioned the row of arbor vitae on other side and it blocks the view of his house from the stop sign.

Mr. Holmes stated you cannot really see the house until you are past the arbor vitae.

Mr. Marc Lichtman, 134 N. LaSalle, Chicago, IL, Attorney, stated there are a number of problems with the plan, there are other options the owner could have looked at, not only unique property in Highland Park, could look at maybe pushing back to avoid encroachment, could have kept garage and not go into the front yard, there are ways to minimize impact on front yard, could dig under basement, negatively impacts neighbors, could push back or build underneath, could move north to minimize light impact, standards have to be met, petitioner bought house in April 2021 for $690,000, if he puts two-car garage if will yield larger return, can put in another area, is looking at above average return, bought as one-car garage and wants return as a three-car garage, can build with minimum impact by excavating basement or building in back, issue is not to give petitioner maximum return, but reasonable return, he can still get a reasonable return because client paid $730,000 and they had multiple offers, there are people who will buy homes with one-car garage, there is not unusual hardship, property has had one-car garage, many homes in Highland Park built in 1950s have one-car garages and still sell, can achieve return with one-car garage, no demonstrative or unusual hardship, physical condition of property will not result in a discriminatory effect, bought with one-car garage, could have bought with condition that they receive condition for a two-car garage, gambled they could get a two-car garage, they created the hardship, will be detrimental to neighborhood, it is an open area and forested, is an intrusion and will have negative impact, will be looking at intrusion, variation bad for neighborhood, will stick out, no effort made to move to north, will not fit, variation will impair adequate light, feels it will destroy his property, will alter essential character of neighborhood, will notice when driving down street, is not in harmony with zoning code, bought as one-car garage, no effort to move back, could go below grade so as not to cut off light, there are things they could do to make a better plan, is a band-aid fix to get two-car garage, front yards in Highland Park are special, designed to be harder variations to get because of the front yard setback, code was designed to protect the look of city blocks and this will stick out.

Mr. Scott Hoskins, Resident, stated he was under contract in December when he realized that this request has been made. He moved in January. He wants to be reasonable and feels the project will have a significant impact on his property. (unintelligible) He showed the view from the second floor bedroom, and the extension will impact the light. He showed the view from the first floor den and kitchen. The extension will impact sight lines. He showed the view from the front patio. What has been proposed needs to be in harmony with the neighborhood and it does not meet the standards.

Mr. Holmes stated he would have appreciated some of the comments at the previous sessions. He has put a lot of work into preparing the documents as best as possible. The reason they are doing this is because there is recognition that the code sometime needs to be given relief. The burden is on him to convince the Board. In one of the previous presentations he stated the seller misrepresented the side yard setback. He asked about side yard the setback and was given a survey that said there was 14’ of side yard when they had 5’. Mr. Hoskins was at the first meeting and knew there might be construction and he still bought. How can he argue it will affect the value of his house when he bought it anyway. When the bought their house they had a good feeling that there would be an ability to build a two-car garage. The fact they were non-conforming was not disclosed by the sellers. Regarding financial return, he did not come in and say he wanted make a ton of money. The standards are he has to demonstrate that because of condition of house it will not recognize a reasonable return. It has nothing to do with wanting to make money and has to do with wanting a two-car garage. The hardship is there is no where else to put the garage without encroaching. He cannot do this because of the unique condition of the property and that is the hardship. It is a unique situation of the property. It will not impact the light on the second floor and will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the neighbors. He bought the property and knew there was a risk. Mr. Hoskins was at the first hearing and still bought the house. The reasons he moved to Highland Park is their family is within two blocks and they have a family situation. They need to be near their granddaughters to help out. This house did not have any offers and if they had more time they would have opted for a house with a two-car garage. They love the location and the house. They did not know about the SSZ and have been through it with the patio. They did not know they were buying a non-conforming property. It is the decision of the ZBA if he has made a good case. He thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Lichtman stated they raised other scenarios the petitioner could have looked at. They do not have to encroach into the front yard. You have to have a plan with the least impact in getting the zoning variation. This was not addressed by the petitioner. When he bought the house he may have thought he was hook winked but there are plenty of people who do their due diligence in buying real estate. He could have done this as part of their due diligence when they purchased the home. It has not been shown that any other concepts have been explored and it does not meet the standards.

Mr. Holmes stated if Mr. Lichtman had been at the earlier sessions it would have been more appropriate where he addressed all of the things he is now bringing up. If he had known this as going to go this way maybe they would have voted last time. The Board was feeling pretty good about the case and asked he present some drawings. In good faith

he presented the actual drawings and spent a lot of time on them. He did ask for the survey and he showed emails where he asked for documentation from the seller that there was no lot line issue. They gave him a survey that has 14’ of setback and they bought the house with that information. This would have been more appropriate at the first two meetings and he thought to finalize in good faith. Now they are arguing so many things he has already submitted. There are 50 pages of documentation and it is a little aggravating. He wanted to contest the statement that he should have done his due diligence. They were given an inaccurate survey and they made a decision based on that.

Mr. Lichtman stated there are no guarantees that anyone will receive approval. There could be other options that have been not addressed. This is a permanent improvement and will be there a long time. The ZBA should consider what can be done to effectuate the game plan.

Mr. Holmes stated at the first meeting he presented the design and was challenged to look at options and came back with revisions that cut 3.5’ off the width and 2’ off the depth of the plan. Digging under the house, knocking down the garage, tearing up the patio and building on the edge of the ravine he doubted. He could barely build a patio on the edge of the ravine. If there was an easy way to do this he would have opted to take the easy path to build the garage. He did look at options and came back with a significant revision. It is a very small garage he wants to build in order to appease the neighbors.

Mr. Hoskins stated the first time Mr. Holmes put forth his second plan it was minimally different. It was the same structure, same style and sized down a little. The standards are not met and what was proposed in first meeting is similar to what is proposed now.

Member Bay commend both sides on a thorough job in a tough situation. He felt for the petitioner if he was mislead when he purchased the home. He was opposed from the beginning and nothing has changed. They need to apply the standards and there are several standards it does not meet and certainly the standards about altering the essential character of neighborhood. He could not support the variation.

Member Hendrick stated a lot has been said and he thought some of it was untrue and mischaracterized. He could not go through every single statement. It is irrelevant whether Mr. Lichtman was here for the other meetings. The Board has taken into account the information and it is part of the public record. He would not be concerned who is in attendance. He liked to see people try and exhaust their options and agreed with finding the least invasive way to do something. He thought Mr. Holmes had bent over backwards to try and make it work. It is easy to say bulldoze the front porch and put the garage on one side and there is a practical nature to this. They have to apply the standards and he did not want to go through every standard and state whether or not they were met. For him, based on the facts presented which are thorough, he did believe the standard for light and air had been met. He thought extending the garage as proposed would not impair the light into the house. He could not vote in favor. The survey situation is not the ZBAs place to rectify. If he felt he was hood winked he should explore that outside the ZBA process.

Member Zaransky commended Mr. Holmes for spending hours on his presentation. Last week he was feeling better about this and they would flesh out some details and everyone would be happy with a peaceful resolution and this turned out not to be the case. There are multiple viewpoints and would have a hard time approving this. He thought it did change the essential character of the neighborhood and he would not be comfortable approving it.

Member Beck stated he had thought a lot about this. The side setback is not germane to the conversation and the crux is the front setback. He did see it as a not valid argument. He did not think it will impair the light in the bedroom. They need to remember ROI is not necessarily monetary. The garage will not destroy the neighborhood and the renderings are very nice. The landscaping will be a good addition. He was in favor of the application.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed with Member Beck and thought and a return on your investment does not have to be monetary and can be the pleasure you take out of your property. They often see two-car garages and did not think a one- or two-car garage is what defines a neighborhood. She was struggling with impairment of light but was also looking at this the same way as Member Beck. The applicant has done his homework and agreed with Member Hendrick that asking someone to dig under his house is not reasonable. She was sorry to see the neighbors are not in agreement and cannot find a peaceful resolution. She was in favor of the application.

Chair Cullather stated both sides have made relevant statements. (unintelligible) He agreed with Member Beck and Vice Chair Putzel that the standards have been met and the hardship goes to the undersized property on a ravine created the hardship. (unintelligible) He did come back with a changed plan and tried to appease he neighbors. (unintelligible) The sunlight is not an issue and will not be impaired because the addition is being pushed back (unintelligible). He agreed with Member Beck and Vice Chair Putzel that the standards had been met. They need four affirmative votes and one member is absent. He asked if the applicant if he wanted a vote or to continue to a date certain when they may have a full board.

Mr. Holmes stated he would like a continuance.

Planner Burhop stated if there is a tie vote that means the motion fails and not that the application is denied.

Mr. Holmes stated he would have to come back anyway.

Planner Burhop stated if it looked like the motion would not pass he would recommend a continuance.

Mr. Holmes stated he would like to continue.

Mr. Lichtman stated if they go for a continuance it means that both parties will have to put their case out again for that board member.

Chair Cullather stated the meeting is recorded and she can watch the recording and ask any questions. It will be shorter than this evening.

Vice Chair Putzel stated even though the applicant would like a continuance, they could have a vote and if there is a tie they can revisit continuing it. She motioned to vote as drafted, seconded by Member Hendrick.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: Zaransky, Bay

Motion passed 4-2.

Mr. Holmes thanked the Board.

Councilman Tapia asked if they wanted to push through to the end or stop after the next presentation.

Chair Cullather asked what the next meeting looked like.

Planner Burhop stated the next meeting is April 21st and there is one continuance.

Member Bay stated the Board can continue without him and he was not sure how much longer he could continue.

Chair Cullather asked Mr. Jenks if he could continue for two weeks.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, Attorney, stated the applicant was the contract purchaser of the property and the contingency was until tomorrow. If they are unable to continue tonight he would have to go back to the seller and ask for an extension. They need to be heard to tonight.

Vice Chair Putzel asked if they can give him priority in the schedule.

Mr. Mark Muller stated they have the PDC final meeting on Apr 19th and then go to Council so this would not work. They want to break ground this summer.

Member Bay left the meeting.

B. #2022-VAR-009

Property: 1989 Richfield Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R4

Appellant: Jeff and Judith Golden

Address: 1989 Richfield Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioners and property owners, Jeff and Judith Golden, of 1989 Richfield Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, request 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 R4 zoning district, to (i) encroach 1.5’ within the required 27.4’ side yard from the east property line, and (ii) encroach 15.51’ into the required rear yard from the north property line, in order to construct additions to an existing single family home.

Planner Burhop stated the applicant asked for a continuance to April 21, 2022. Member Hendrick motioned to continue to April 21, 2022, seconded by Member Beck. Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 5-0.

VI. NEW BUSINESS:

A. #2022-VAR-012

Property: 1950-1964 Sheridan Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: B5 and Central District Residential Overlay

Appellant: Kyle Fell, Fulton Developers

Address: 600 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner, Kyle Fell, Fulton Developers, 600 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, submitted on behalf of the ownership Park Sheridan LLC, 600 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, request by authority of Section 94.407 of the Highland Park Code, as amended, for a Tree Removal Permit for Heritage Trees, to remove one Heritage Tree, a red oak located approximately along the east side of the property, located on the subject property in order to construct a four-story multiple-family residential building.

Chair Cullather recused himself from this item.

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

Planner Burhop stated staff had recommended some type of condition be included in the approval order that the tree cannot be removed until the applicant gets final approval for the project. They want to change the condition in the order. If the Board does not want to

grant approval he would recommend this be continued to April 21, 2022 and they will bring a condition that is satisfactory.

Member Beck (unintelligible)

Planner Burhop stated if they want the condition staff is trying to recommend it would require they get final approval before taking the tree down.

Member Beck asked if they would have to come back.

Planner Burhop stated no.

Mr. Mark Muller, Fulton Developers, 127 S. Deerpark Dr., Highland Park, IL, Applicant, made a presentation including they have designed single and multi projects in Highland Park since 2002 including Laurel Court, Laurel Apts., Laurel Residences, projects revitalized Laurel Ave., are completing construction of One Highland Park, Park Sheridan is new development, is a four-story condo with 18 market and 2 affordables, several amenities include club room, fitness room, enclosed park lounge areas, underground heated garage and parking along the public alley, they are allowed 62 units and 5 stories, they are proposing 20 units and 4 stories, are trying to provide a quality development, are maximizing open space with landscaping, natural light and large eating spaces, development will have 10,000 s.f. less of impervious space, are replacing commercial lot with landscaping and trees, landscape plan, are aware of the heritage tree and looked at options for not removing it, what they are presenting it the best way to maintain the healthy trees and provide access to the building in a safe manner, it will not alter the character of neighborhood, the five trees along Sheridan Rd. will provide a canopy and they want to maintain it, it is important to have a circular drive and not a drop off area that would force them to remove two large trees, will not change character or alter character, and will not impact neighbors, streetscape will not change, sent letter to 80 homeowners in February, met the neighbors in February and received positive comments regarding the project, development will increase value of neighborhood, no practical alternates, considered having drop off area along Sheridan on parkway, this would force them to remove two healthy trees and lose public parking spaces, spaces are important for Arts Center, another option was to move circular drive to north, it needs to be 60’ wide end to end, if moved it would impact heritage tree and existing trees to north of the property and they have will have to remove some trees in the parkway, they want to avoid because it will change character of neighborhood, north end of property is a shallow triangle and it is not feasible locate entrance there, not possible to have entrance on north end of building because entrance is usually located closer to the core of building to comply with safety code regulations, another option was to relocate to Park Ave., entire building would have to relocate 90º so entrance would face Park Ave., this would mean several units facing the alley which is not desirable for project or residents, also would lose park which acts as buffer between alley and building, entrance is required on Sheridan by the (unintelligible), proposed circle drive for residents, guests and emergency vehicles, provides least impact to Sheridan traffic and preserves all trees in the parkway, will not lose street parking, removal is necessary for (unintelligible) of the property, received report from arborist saying tree has four attachment to main stem, there is decay and swelling in the trunk, removal is best use of property, gone through other options and this is the best, had two meetings with the PDC in December, March and one scheduled for April 19th, have been working on project for one year, have given special consideration to the relief, have worked to preserve as many healthy trees as possible on parkway, design incorporates a park on west side as well as landscaping on entire perimeter and sides, heritage tree is in poor condition, are replacing with a beautiful park and landscaping, are incorporating 23 new trees, 18 evergreens for a total of 41 new trees on site.

Member Hendrick stated when they were talking about alternates they mentioned when it came to Sheridan Rd., Engineering would not approve getting rid of street parking in front of the building.

Mr. Muller stated they do not want to lose of public parking in front of the building. They have had conversations with the Arts Center and are going to have a public benefit by putting some art on the parcel and their biggest concern is not losing public parking. The circular drive is the way to minimize that.

Member Hendrick asked if someone from Engineering said that they would reject the project if that was the plan.

Mr. Muller stated they have a letter from Engineering saying they are not allowed to lose public parking.

Mr. Kyle Fell, 779 (unintelligible) Ln. Aurora, IL, stated they would not accept the loss of public parking.

Vice Chair Putzel motioned to approve. Member Beck motioned to approve as written.

Planner Burhop stated it was their prerogative to adopt the order as written and he had two amendments that staff recommends.

Member Hendrick stated they could poll the members.

Member Beck stated he would like to withdraw his motion.

Member Hendrick stated he was in support of the variation and thought a great deal of effort and research had gone into it and it was a great presentation. He appreciated they looked at the practical alternates.

Member Zaransky agreed with Member Hendrick and thought the circular drive was the way to go. From a life safety standpoint is was a no brainer and also emergency personnel will be closer to the building. The area is pretty congested and that would cause more of an issue. He was in support of the application and thought they could condition it tonight so that the project can go forward without future hearings. He thought the project was stunning.

Member Beck stated he was in favor of granting with conditions. It is a beautiful project and will improve the City.

Vice Chair Putzel agreed and thought it looks like a beautiful project and met the standards. She thought it was commendable they are adding so many trees to the project and it is significant.

Planner Burhop stated if there is a motion to adopt he recommended two amendments, one is strike the reference to the landscape plan and second to change the condition to “this order is subject to, and expressly conditioned on, the adoption by the City Council of an ordinance approving a Planned Development for the property, in substantial conformance with the Applicant’s pending application, therefore, identified by the City as Public Hearing #2021-PUD-013. If the City Council does not adopt such an ordinance on or before ___________, this Order will be automatically null and void and of no force of effect. The Applicant may not remove the Subject Tree prior to adoption of such an ordinance.” He stated he would recommend asking Mr. Muller if this is acceptable.

Member Beck stated they do not need the date since the approval is conditioned upon Council action.

Member Hendrick agreed.

Planner Burhop stated that was the way Corporate Counsel drafted it, but the ZBA makes the decisions.

Vice Chair Putzel asked Mr. Muller is he was amenable to this.

Mr. Muller stated yes and they want to break ground in the summer. If they wanted a time frame he suggested one or two years

Member Beck (unintelligible)

Member Hendrick stated he agreed and he did not think anything would change regarding the heritage tree and he did not see a need for a time limit.

Planner Burhop stated they could adopt the approval order and include an amendment to strike the landscaping requirement and to adopt staff’s recommendation and striking the time limit requirement.

Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order with two amendments and strike the reference to landscaping plan and to incorporate language discussed during the meeting that starts with “this order is subject to….” They ask that the sentence concerning “if Council does not adopt….” be struck from the amendment. Member Beck seconded.

Member Beck stated they could just strike the ”on” or “before.”

Member Hendrick stated his intent was for the condition to be that they be granted approval by the PDC and Council before taking down the tree.

Vice Chair Putzel asked Member Beck if he was OK with the way that portion had been struck.

Member Beck stated yes.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel

Nays: None

Motion passed 4-0.

Chair Cullather rejoined the meeting.

B. #2022-VAR-013

Property: 1298 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Daniel T. Jenks

Address: 1346 Lincoln Ave. South, Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner, Daniel T. Jenks, of 1346 Lincoln Ave. South, Highland Park, IL 60035, submitted on behalf of the ownership, the J. Clifford Moos Declaration of Trust, dated April 22, 1987, 1298 Linden Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, with legal representative Calvin Bernstein, request the following:

Application #2022-VAR-013, a request by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1) of the Highland Park Zoning Code, variations of provisions of Sections 150.711 and 150.703, as required under the R5 zoning district, to (i) encroach 6.83’ into the required established building setback 49.22’ front yard measured from the north property line, and (ii) encroach 1.1’ into the total required 26.15’ side yard, for the total side yard requirement measured from the west and east property lines.

Application #2022-VAR-013, a request by authority of Section 94.407 of the Highland Park Code, as amended, for a Tree Removal Permit for Heritage Trees, to remove two heritage trees located on the subject property.

Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, SSZ, photos, survey, existing site plan with heritage trees, proposed site plan, EBS analysis, other comments and requested relief.

Planner Burhop stated this would slightly increase the EBS for the block because the garage is closer to the front property line than the proposal.

Chair Cullather asked if the part on the right side by the stairs encroached. Planner Fawell stated that is an allowed porch and is allowed to encroach. Member Beck asked if they are trading off a setback for a SSZ.

Planner Burhop stated the patio and deck is allowed only in the 10’ in SSZ setback and they can have up to 300 s.f. If the terrace was patio or deck it could be pushed 10’ beyond the red line on the bottom.

Member Hendrick stated it looks like the current structure is already non-confirming.

Planner Fawell stated the existing home is set back 48.64’ and the garage is 41.4’ so they both encroach.

Member Hendrick stated it looks like the actual net increase they are looking for is from 49.22’ to 48.6’.

Planner Fawell stated that is stating what the EBS is currently and what it would be reduced to if the variation is approved.

Member Hendrick asked what is the marginal net amount they are asking for. Planner Fawell stated it is about less than a 1’ difference.

Mr. Cal Bernstein, 484 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL, Attorney, made a presentation including applicants are long time Highland Park residents and have been looking for their dream home to age in place, the property has unique challenges and Lincoln is a curving street that corrupts the front yard setback, there is SSZ in the rear and the lots have different depths, to the south is a vacant lot and south there are and then there are several homes set back further but they are significantly deeper, buildings envelopes on each of the properties are different, house is uninhabitable and structurally obsolete and is existing non-conforming, new house will encroach 1’ less into established front yard setback than current garage, actual structures encroach more than what is being proposed, there are two heritage trees they are seeking to remove, they did a tree survey and there are several key trees on the property and much care has been taken to preserve those as much as possible, tree #396 leans over the house and up against it, there is an underground storage tank near the tree so any redevelopment of the property will significantly endanger the tree and the root system could be damaged, tree #315 has a large canopy that and root zone takes up large portion of the property, by shifting the house to the south it preserves the other two trees.

Mr. Mark Downey, 13705 W. (unintelligible) Ct., Lake Forest, IL, Architect, stated the nature of street relative to the SSZ pinches the buildable footprint, there are four heritage trees and a number of key trees, they did their best to evaluate many alternates that would maintain the most important trees they could, no one would want #396 in front of their house, the tank will need to be removed and possibly contaminate the soil and could further damage the tree, in evaluating the other three trees #315, #392, #388 the home would open up to the rear yard and side, it is obvious the garage would want be to located to northwest portion of the property, #392 is not on client’s property and they will do everything to maintain the tree, they will stay away from #388 as much as they can, the canopy of the trees is large, they had to make choices, they did evaluate garage options and looked at three-car garage outside and it pushed footprint further back and it began to encroach on the SSZ, two-car inside did not work, did not study a three-car front load, they evaluated all options and came up with what is shown a split three-car garage that has the body of house more engaged more to the garage and they tucked the single car back for the least impact on #392, looked at U-driveway and with the other key trees it would have a negative impact, they will be careful with paving next #392, they did everything they could to maintain the health of trees, do not feel it is in anyone’s interest to develop the property with a tree like #396, (unintelligible), these were studied in detail and they feel this location is best for the property, (unintelligible) closest point that the house is towards the street, asking for a small encroachment and still respecting the neighbor, making sure location of house is respectful of entire street.

Mr. Matt Pollack, Red Rock Custom Homes, 151 S. Pfingsten, Deerfield, IL, stated the underground storage tank sits to the side of the tree and leans over the existing home, the diameter of the tree is even further over the home, once they finish home any insurance company will come out and look at it and say it is not if, but when. It has a strong lean over the home and the diameter is even bigger over the home. From an insurability standpoint once they finish a home any insurance company will come out and say it is not if, but when. It has a big crown and strong lean and will continue to pull over toward the new home. The oil tank will need to be removed because it was found. They tend to run anywhere from 8’ -10’ wide and 8’ - 10’ underground and the root system is exactly where the strength of the tree comes from. When they pull out the tank he did not think the tree would make it through the removal. If they have to remove contaminated soil it will further diminish the tree’s ability to live and in a few years it most likely die. It is a hazard to the home, residents and neighbors. They had discussed a front load garage and that impacts the root zone of the tree. The tree leans very heavily and is a large tree. The oil tank could lead to the tree becoming more unstable. When the insurance adjustor or inspector and sees the tree leaning over the home that will make the home uninsurable. It is not safe and there four heritage trees on the lot and are staying clear of two of them and they want to preserve as much as they can. They wanted to forego a circular driveway to preserve as much as they can.

Mr. Bernstein stated they are not proposing a circle drive and want to preserve the trees on the right corner.

Member Hendrick asked why they cannot move it 5’ back.

Mr. Downey stated 5’ will not make a difference and it is a huge canopy and leans over. The tree is a danger. The further they move the house the more impervious surface there is.

Member Hendrick asked for further explanation.

Mr. Downey stated the drive would be longer and they want to keep a minimum amount of impervious surface.

Mr. Bernstein stated tree #392 is not on their property and they are trying to be sensitive to the neighbor’s trees. Tree #392 is in better shape than tree #396. The lots are smaller as you go to the north and you can see how the proposed house lines up with the other houses. The lots change as you go to right and are much deeper. They are trying to line up the house with the one next door. The encroachment is less than the existing non conforming house. The house is sandwiched between the ravine and the street in front and they cannot get a reasonable return without seeking a variance. The lot creates unique challenges and they are trying to match with house to the left. The topography and streetscape has created the hardship and not by the applicant. There is no practical alternate except as proposed. Tree #396 will probably be lost regardless with the removal of the underground tank. It is in average condition. Tree # 315 is on the south side of the property. The applicant has talked to most of the neighbors and they did not have objections.

Mr. Dan Jenks & Ms. Mary Moreland, Applicants, stated they had talked to neighbors with the exception of the neighbor to the south, and the people next door were concerned about how close the house will be to their house. The garage will be father away from their house. Everyone in the neighborhood was supportive and understood it is an old house. They like the trees and take care of the trees at their current house. They do not take pleasure in taking down trees and they could not figure out any other way. He did not feel comfortable living in a house with a tree leaning like that.

Ms. Moreland thanked the Board for their time.

Mr. Bernstein asked for questions.

Mr. Ben Miller, City Forester, stated trees #397, #398, #399 and #400 are not key trees. Tree #397 is invasive in the ravines. Trees #396 and #315 were removed in the interest of saving the two other trees. The applicants do not have standing to remove tree #392 and #388 is in the steep slope setback as well as the side yard setback. The existing home has a full basement and is in close proximity to #396 and there is not much in terms of root distribution on that half of the tree. He did not hear an answer as to (unintelligible). The Arborist’s evaluation for #396 makes no reference to any concerns about the leaning. He thought it was a natural lean and not failing.

Chair Cullather (unintelligible)

Mr. Miller stated he needed to know more and whether there was any environmental remediation. He was only made aware of the tank yesterday.

Mr. David Geary, 1267 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL, stated they live across the ravine and the proposed structure is deeper into the lot and is taking away a lot of their privacy. They do not appreciate cutting down trees and do not want to look at a massive home. The struggle they are having is coming up with a plan that works and trying to build a 6,000 s.f. house is difficult. The house never made it to market which is shame because he thought someone would take it on and rehab it. The FAR information was not filled out and he wanted to know how large the house would be.

Mr. Bernstein stated they do not know exactly how big the house will be. They acknowledge they will meet all other zoning requirements including the rear yard setbacks. The appreciate concern but they not seeking relief on that elevation. They will be constructing within the allowable building envelope in the rear. There is no relief to be sought there.

Mr. Robert & Stephanie Bassill, 1277 Forest Ave. Highland Park, IL, stated they had concerns about the back slope and they share a property corner. She did not want it to block the light and it is a natural environment.

Mr. Bernstein stated they are actually trying to pull the house further away from the SSZ. The height will comply with the regulations and other setbacks.

Mr. Jeffrey Lyons, 1257 Forest Ave., Highland Park, IL, stated he enjoyed the ravine. He mentioned the storage tank and asked about the risks in removing and what to expect. He asked about the possibility of air pollution from demolishing he house.

Mr. Bernstein stated regarding air pollution, any demolishing of the home will be done in conjunction with the City and they have regulations that a demolition would have to adhere to. He could contact the City Building Dept. with any questions.

Mr. Pollack stated they have not investigated if there is any oil in the tank and if so there are licensed companies that come out and pump it out. They are governed by the IEPA. They will then remove the tank. It is taken off the site and cleaned and recycled. If there is any leaching into the ground it is handled by a licensed IEPA contractor and needs to go to a special site. There should be no exposure or danger to neighbors.

Mr. Downey stated he had been practicing for 38 years on well over 1,000 homes. The home cannot be remodeled. A new home will be built on the property as a valuable piece in a wonderful neighborhood. The hopes of the house being renovated are small. If they desired to build a smaller home it would have to be narrower and pushed further back towards the neighbors to the back. They have balanced the factors to do the right thing. They do not relish of the taking down trees. This is a property that will be developed. The house will not be taller than 32’.

Mr. Geary asked why does the house has to be so big and why for two empty nesters are they building something between 5,000 - 6,000 s.f. on that lot. They are building this really large structure that will be impeding on the neighbors to the west across the ravine taking away their privacy. He hoped the house will not look like a mistake.

Mr. Bernstein stated this is a large lot 30,000 s.f. and the plan is to build a 5000 s.f. house which is very reasonable for the size of the lot. They are trying to be sensitive to the neighbors. Regarding the ravine, they are trying to move the house as far as possible to the east away from the ravine. They are not seeking relief on that side of the property. All they are seeking is to remove two heritage tress and to encroach into the established front yard setback less than the existing structure.

Member Hendrick stated he appreciated the neighbors’ comments, but the reality is when you purchase a piece of land you can do things as matter of right. They will still have to follow the other parts of the code and work with the Building Div. and adhere to the height requirements. They will be careful not to come back to the ZBA. They have to look at the issues presented and he thought the concerns raised by the neighbor reinforce their plan. Regarding the heritage tree standards, he was hung up on whether there was a practical alternate. The most practical seemed to be pushing it back keep away from the ravine. He heard they do not want it near the ravine. He thought the standards has been met with the heritage tree and the standards for the setback had also been met. The lot line is curved down and with the trees he thought is was a hardship. He understood the concerns of the neighbors and he would expect them to be addressed by Public Works.

Member Zaransky agreed with Member Hendrick and they cannot build anywhere else without encroaching on root systems. The house has to go and any house will disrupt the trees. He would support the application.

Member Beck agreed with Member Hendrick. They are asking for a three-car garage and (unintelligible). He was in favor of the application.

Vice Chair Putzel stated their job is not to determine whether someone needs a house of a certain size. They have to go through the standards and they have to make sure whether they have been met. The size or whether they want a certain type of house is not under their jurisdiction. She agreed about the trees and sometimes the best solution is to remove a tree. Hopefully they have other plans to add other trees because the construction will damage the trees. She mentioned the alternates and the setback request is deminimus. She thought the it was an unusual circumstance the had not created. She was in support of the application.

Chair Cullather agreed and thought the standards had been met. (unintelligible) As far as the neighbors on the other side of the ravine, (unintelligible) He was in support of the application.

Chair Cullather asked if they should have two motions.

Planner Fawell stated it was up to the Board.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion for the variance. Vice Chair Putzel motion to approve the variance for the setback as drafted, seconded by Member Hendrick.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed: 5-0.

Chair Cullather entertained a motion regarding the heritage trees. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order pertaining to the tree removal, seconded by Member Zaransky.

Planner Fawell called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed: 5-0.

VII. STAFF REPORT:

Planner Fawell stated the next meeting is April 21, 2022 and there is one item on the agenda for 1989 Richfield.

Planner Burhop stated starting in May meetings may be in person.

Vice Chair Putzel stated they needed to address the time limit. The first applicant was not respectful of the time of the other applicants nor the Board and it evolved into an argumentative setting. She thought they should set time limits and it would be more effective and they would not be here so late.

Member Hendrick stated if it would be more than an hour maybe they could put them at the end of the agenda. He thanked Mr. Miller for his time.

Councilman Tapia stated there were other ideas for meeting management and techniques and they could talk about them at another time.

VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None

VIII. ADJOURNMENT:

Vice Chair Putzel motion to adjourn, seconded by Member Beck.

Planner Burhop called the roll:

Ayes: Beck, Zaransky, Hendrick, Putzel, Cullather

Nays: None

Motion passed 5-0.

The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 11:41 PM.

http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2670&Inline=True