Lake County Gazette

City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met June 6

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

CALL TO ORDER

At 7:30 p.m., Chairperson Bay called the meeting to order. This Commission meeting takes place on-site.

Staff was asked to call the roll.

ROLL CALL

Commissioners Present: Chairperson Bay; Commissioners Beck, Chase, Cullather, Treshansky, Yablon, & Zaransky

Council member Present: Ross

Student Council Present: Hecht

Staff declared that a quorum was present.

Guests Present: Victor Czechura/Petitioner

Travis Johnson/Petitioner

John Dini, Contractor/Electronic Entry Systems, Inc.

Staff Present: Planner Patrick Hoffmann & Intern/Management Analyst Thomas Valencia

Others Present: Gale Cerabona/Recorder

APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals – May 2, 2024

Commissioner Yablon moved to approve the May 2, 2024, regular meeting minutes as drafted.

Commissioner Cullather seconded the motion.

On a roll call vote

Voting Yea Chairperson Bay; Commissioners Beck, Chase, Cullather, Treshansky, Yablon, & Zaransky

Voting Nay: None

Chairperson Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.

BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC

There was no Business from the Public.

OLD BUSINESS

There was no Old Business.

NEW BUSINESS

1. #VAR-2024-00018

Property: 1837 Richfield Avenue

Zoning District: R6

Appellant: Kazimierz Czechura

Address: 1837 Richfield Avenue, Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner and owner, Kazimierz Czechura of 1837 Richfield Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois 60035, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1) of the Highland Park Code a variation of provision Section 150.703, to encroach into the required front-yard setback of 25 feet along the Southern property line to construct an addition and portico entry to the existing structure.

Intern Valencia offered a presentation:

• Project background

◦ R6 zoning

◦ built in 1954

◦ placing an addition and portico that encroach into the front yard

• Site location

• Aerial view was shown

• Plat of Survey

• Property Photos were submitted by Applicant and displayed

• Proposed Work

• Richfield Avenue Setbacks (other homes also encroach)

• Elevations were illustrated

• Other comments (there were none)

• Review

Some ZBA comments/questions are:

• Commissioner Yablon asked if there is any issue with permeable surface. Planner Hoffmann said no, there is not. He noted the only coverage is the required rear yard.

• Chairperson Bay said the permitting process will take place, and Building Department Staff would be involved. Planner Hoffmann concurred.

• Commissioner Treshansky asked if, the property were conforming, there would be variances. Planner Hoffman said there would not. The lots are very small and don’t have the depth. This would be allowed up to 5’.

• Commissioner Cullather stated that would depend on how the house is positioned on the lot. Planner Hoffmann replied – possibly.

• Commissioner Chase asked, regarding the buildable area, if the setback lines were there when it was built. Planner Hoffmann responded he is unaware.

Chairperson Bay swore in Petitioner, Victor Czechura, who advised it’s a tough and corner lot. He noted it’s a split-level home on the north side. The expansion and functionality will be on the south side.

Chairperson Bay asked if there is anyone in the audience wishing to comment. There was no one.

Some ZBA comments are:

• Chairperson Chase asked what the hardship is. Chairperson Bay presumes it’s the shape of the lot. She concurred, said there are limitations and no negatives, and is in favor of this proposal.

• Commissioner Treshansky concurred. He noted the property is a legal nonconforming lot, a small ask, and is in favor.

• Commissioner Beck stated this is easy, as there is a hardship. He is in favor.

• Commissioner Zaransky concurred. He noted there is an issue on this street and is in favor.

• Commissioner Cullather concurred as it is a narrow and corner lot; addition offers livable space

• Commissioner Yablon concurred, believes the standards have been met, and is in favor.

• Chairperson Bay also concurred, believes the standards have been met, and is in favor.

Commissioner Cullather moved to adopt the Approval Order as written. Commissioner Zaransky seconded the motion.

On a roll call vote

Voting Yea Chairperson Bay; Commissioners Beck, Chase, Cullather, Treshansky, Yablon, & Zaransky

Voting Nay: None

Chairperson Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.

2. #VAR-2024-00019

Property: 41 Sheridan Road

Zoning District: R5

Appellant: Travis Johnson

Address: 41 Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IL 60035

The petitioner, and owner Travis Johnson of 41 Sheridan Road, Highland Park, IL 60035, requests by authority of Section 173.030 and Section 150.1204(A)(14) of the Highland Park Zoning Code, variations of provisions of Section 173.010(C) and Section 150.707(B)(1), as required under the R5 zoning district, to exceed the maximum allowable 4 feet-high fence requirement and to place said fence within a Subdivision Setback Line.

Planner Hoffmann explained the proposal:

• Project background

◦ Construct a gate and fence in the front yard

◦ R5 zoning district

◦ built in 1929

◦ encroaches in the Subdivision Building Line

• Site location

• Aerial view was shown (backs up to the steep slope zone)

• Plat of Survey

• Property Photos were displayed

• Proposed Work

• Gate Drawing

• Sheridan Grove Subdivision Plat was illustrated

• Appeal No. BAZ2627 (37 Sheridan Road was approved in 1999) 

Commissioner Cullather stated the 6’ height would affect others; they’d come before the ZBA.

Planner Hoffmann concurred.

• Other comments (there were none)

• Review

Some questions/comments for Staff are:

• Chairperson Bay said there are two requests and two chapter standards to apply. Planner Hoffmann concurred.

• Commissioner Chase asked if there is a municipal setback. Planner Hoffmann advised not for the structure.

• Commissioner Beck noted the other bordering houses have fences and are parallel to this proposed fence. Planner Hoffmann concurred, illustrated same, and said this would line up with neighbors’ fences.

• Commissioner Yablon asked what the order of decision making is. Chairperson Bay advised the encroachment approval would come first.

Chairperson Bay swore in Petitioner, Travis Johnson, who advised his neighbors all have a fence over 4’. The other homeowners that had an issue also received a variance. The existing and proposed gates will match. They tried an electric fence for their two puppies which didn’t work.

Some ZBA comments are:

• Commissioner Beck asked – why 6’ for the driveway? He noted there is a wood gate currently that they could use; in keeping with the character of the era.

• Chairperson Bay said the fence standards are different than zoning standards; should fit in and harmonize with the neighborhood.

• Commissioner Yablon expressed a future homeowner could change this fence. Any gate in perpetuity is being proposed. It is a gorgeous gate. Planner Hoffmann concurred.

• Chairperson Bay stated this specific gate could be approved and a case for another gate option would have to return to the ZBA. Planner Hoffmann advised a sunset clause could be added.

• Commissioner Chase asked what the variance next door was for. Commissioner Beck said there are two gates. Mr. Johnson noted they have the only house without a gate.

Chairperson Bay asked if there is anyone in the audience wishing to comment. There was no one.

More ZBA comments are:

• Commissioner Yablon asked about height vs. width. Mr. Johnson illustrated same and noted a pillar will go into the ground and is the tallest portion. The gate is lower.

• Commissioner Zaransky asked, per the sketch, if the gate is 6’. Mr. Johnson replied the pillar is higher than the gate. Commissioner Zaransky doesn’t like 6’ fences in the front yard. He believes this makes sense with the neighborhood and would be in favor.

• Commissioner Cullather concurs. He is glad 4’ is the majority of the height and is in favor in perpetuity.

• Commissioner Treshansky said he is in favor and would also be if there is a sunset clause.

• Commissioner Beck stated, regarding the placement, the standards have been met. He is in favor with the height of the fence as well.

• Commissioner Chase believes it blends in with the neighborhood. She noted the standards have been met and is in favor with a sunset clause.

• Commissioner Yablon believes the location is appropriate. She reiterated the gate looks gorgeous and is in favor with a sunset clause.

• Student Rep Hecht concurred.

• Chairperson Bay concurred.

Planner Hoffmann shared that a discussion on materials is not customary for the ZBA. He noted that could restrict other future Petitioners.

Contractor, John Dini, informed that the gate has an internal stainless steel frame with red cedar and would last 20+ years.

Commissioner Cullather moved to adopt the variances as drafted. Commissioner Beck seconded the motion.

On a roll call vote

Voting Yea Chairperson Bay; Commissioners Beck, Chase, Cullather, Treshansky, Yablon, & Zaransky

Voting Nay: None

Chairperson Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.

STAFF REPORT

There was no Staff Report.

MISCELLANEOUS

Commissioner Cullather stated there is a large neighborhood that is not in compliance with the code regarding lot size. He suggested City Council consider this as an agenda item. Councilperson Ross advised she will bring this up with the City Manager.

ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Cullather moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Yablon seconded the motion.

On a roll call vote

Voting Yea Chairperson Bay; Commissioners Beck, Chase, Cullather, Treshansky, Yablon, & Zaransky

Voting Nay: None

Chairperson Bay declared that the motion passed unanimously.

https://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2997&Inline=True