City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Oct. 20.
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.
Planner Fawell called 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: Fawell
Student Rep.: Bach
Council Liaison: Tapia
Corporate Counsel: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 15, 2022
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2022 meeting. Member Bay so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.
Planner Fawell called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrik, Bay, Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 10-5-22
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. #2022-VAR-027
Property: 335 Charal Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R5
Appellant: Anita & Bradley Hergott
Address: 335 Charal Ln., Highland Park, IL
The petitioners and property owners, Anita & Bradley Hergott of 335 Charal Ln., Highland Park, IL 60035, with legal representative Calvin Bernstein, request by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(14), of the Highland Park Zoning Code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.707(B)(1), as required under the R5 zoning district, to (i) encroach within the 40’ subdivision building lines measured from the front property lines along Charal Ln. and Green Bay Rd. in order to construct a 4’ fence.
Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, subdivision building line (SBL) analysis, site plan, fence design, surrounding properties context, images, applicant photos, other comments and neighborhood context.
Member Bay stated this is a request for a Chapter 150 zoning variation and as they are dealing with a fence and there are separate standards for fence variations, why are they not using those.
Planner Falwell stated this is not a fence variation. If the SBLs were not there it would be approved by right. It meets the maximum height requirement of 4’ and it is just the SBL which is a requirement from Chapter 150. Any structure higher than 12” would have to seek a variation from the code requirement.
Member Bay stated they are not considering it to be a fence, but a structure. Planner Fawell stated yes.
Vice Chair Putzel asked if there was a backyard on Green Bay.
Planner Fawell stated it is a functional back yard.
Vice Chair Putzel asked if there was a fence already on Green Bay.
Planner Fawell stated there are portions of a fence. She understood it was not the applicant’s fence.
Mr. Calvin Bernstein, Attorney, 484 Central Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, Attorney, stated there is a fence along Green Bay which has been there probably since the subdivision was created. The fence is controlled by the HOA with a minor amount of money paid each year. Part of that is on this property. The money is paid annually and there is no formal HOA. There is no rear yard on the property and it has three front yards and one side yard. There is a fence across the street there and you can see the extenders. The house across the street has access to the outside from the east side of the house. The applicant has the garage and there is no door between that allows access to the outdoor. It does not function as a rear yard because there is no access from the house. There is an access on the west side of the house and a patio there also. They seeking to activate that space with a 4’ fence which could be built as a matter of right but for the SBL. That would activate that space to allow for a grade change from east to west. The purpose is not to create privacy. If they wanted privacy they could plant a row an arbor vitae as a matter of right. They have children and dogs and are trying to create a secure environment to play and to have access to the outdoors. There is nowhere else on the lot to have this. They do not have a traditional rear yard and have a sliver of a side yard to the north. Is it not a mere convenience and this is the only area they can use. The house to the south had a 4’ fence and they could not find a record of a variance being granted. There have been other variances granted on the block for similar relief. They are not asking for a fence variance. Under the code a fence is a structure. It is the way the Highland Park defines structure which includes a fence. That is why they are here to build this 4’ structure. It will not block anything and the idea was not to impinge on the streetscape and it is basically for security. There are two lots like this on the block which are called peninsula lots and are the only ones which have this issue.
Mr. Bernstein stated they talked to the neighbors and they had no objections.
Member Yablon stated this is one of those cases of why the ZBA exists. She thought the standards had been met and it is a reasonable request. She was in favor of the application.
Member Zaransky agreed and thought it a little strange and kind of tiptoes on the character of the street. He wanted to hear from the other members.
Member Bay stated it was straightforward and the uniqueness of the lot qualifies as a hardship. He would favor the application and suggest the option of approving on the design presented.
Member Beck stated the standards had been met and thought the SBL is restrictive based on the design of this peninsula lot. He was in favor of the application.
Member Hendrick agreed with Member Beck and thought the standards had been met. The hardship is the property and it has three front yards and they are just asking for a fence that other people in the area have. He agreed with adding the condition about the type of fence and it could alleviate some concerns about the fence. He would be in favor of the application.
Vice Chair Putzel agreed and thought because there are three front yards it is a no brainer. She did not think they needed to approve the fence if they wanted a wooden enclosed fence for more privacy. She was in favor of it as is.
Chair Cullather agreed and thought the peninsula nature of the lot creates a problem. The SBL requirement makes it a unique hardship. It was not caused by them and there are no financial issues involved. He was in favor of the application. He could go either way on the design.
Member Hendrick asked if the applicant was opposed to conditioning it. Mr. Bernstein stated that was the fence they were planning on.
Chair Cullather called for a motion.
Member Bay motioned to approve the variance and direct staff and hand write in an additional condition they will have the fence material/design constructed as depicted on the application.
Planner Falwell stated they can make staff amend the order or they can come back with the amended order.
Member Bay motioned to direct staff to amend the order.
Chair Cullather suggested they draft the language and pass it tonight and this will allow time to have it typed formally and he will sign it.
Member Bay motioned to approve the variation approval order as presented with the addition of a sentence that calls for the approval to be contingent upon construction of the fence depicted in the packet.
Member Hendrick seconded.
Planner Fawell called the roll:
Ayes: Beck, Yablon, Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay Putzel, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 7-0.
B. #2022-VAR-028
Property: 442 Burton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6/SLOZ
Appellant: Zach Zielinski
Address: 575 S. Arthur Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60005
Petitioner Zach Zielinski of 575 S. Arthur Ave., Arlington Heights, IL 60005, on behalf of property owner Bill Zimmerman, 442 Burton Ave., Highland Park, IL 60035, requests 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 R6 zoning district, to (i) exceed the maximum allowable 40.00% (2,080 s.f.) floor area ratio by 2.9% to 42.90% (2,231 s.f.) in order to construct an addition onto the rear of an existing single family home.
Planner Fawell stated this item is on pause and there are incorrect numbers. She stated she would provide an update at the next meeting.
VI. STAFF REPORT:
Planner Fawell stated there is no meeting on November 3, 2022. The next meeting will be November 17, 2022.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather motioned to adjourn. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Yablon.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 7:55 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2750&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up