City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met February 15.
City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met February 15.
Here is the minutes provided by the Board:
I. Call To Order
At 7:30 pm Chair Henry called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Cullather, Fettner, Henry
Members Absent: Bina, Chaplik, Putzel
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop
Student Reps.: Hoyt
Council Liaison: Stolberg
II. Approval Of Minutes
Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the 2-1-18 meeting. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Bay. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously.
III. Publication Date For New Business: 1-31-18
IV. Business From The Public: None
V. Old Business: None
VI. New Business:
Property: 436 Hazel Ave.
Zoning District: R65
Appellant: Marlex LLC
Address: PO Box 18248, Chicago, IL 60618
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, photos, plat of survey, zoning review, floor plan, front and side elevations, established building setbacks, aerial view, no forestry notes, requested variation and no public comment.
Member Bay asked why the surrounding area is designated national landmark.
Planner Burhop stated he did not know, but this is a national registry and local landmarks have more impact.
Member Fettner asked about the depth and width of the lot.
Planner Burhop stated it is 71.5’W and 75’ is required. It is a substandard lot width.
Member Bay asked if the requested relief is going up to the reduced side yard line.
Planner Burhop stated the reduced side yard has nothing to do with the relief. The relief only has to do with the established building setback.
Member Bay stated is it staying with the side yard.
Planner Burhop stated the proposed side yard is 13.67’ and the requirement is 8.5’. They are well within the buildable area other than the established building setback.
Mr. Mark Shapiro, Marlex LLC, PO Box 18248, Chicago, IL 60618, Applicant, introduced himself.
Chair Henry stated there are eight standards they have to apply to an application and the application does not contain anything which addresses these standards. He asked if he could address these tonight.
Mr. Shapiro stated he had not had a chance to look at the standards.
Chair Henry stated he could continue the application to a meeting of his choice so he has the opportunity to address the standards. If the applicant requests they can continue the item to the next meeting. It is difficult for the Board to pass on an application when the standards have not been addressed.
Mr. Shapiro stated some of the building already protrudes and they are only asking for 3’ extra.
Chair Henry stated they are willing to continue this so he can address the standards. It is difficult to pass the application if the standards are not addressed.
Mr. Shapiro asked when the next meeting was.
Chair Henry stated it was March 1, 2018 and encouraged the applicant to look at the application and be prepared to address these standards. It would be helpful to the Board to have a letter which addresses each standard and how the application meets the standard.
Chair Henry stated at the request of the applicant the item would be continued to March 1, 2018.
VII. Staff Report:
Planner Burhop discussed denied variations. He stated a denied application could be re- submitted immediately. Planner Burhop also stated there is a continuation fee $50.00 just for variations in the fee schedule.
Chair Henry stated he had not realized there was a fee for continuance.
Member Bay asked if this applied to all continuances.
Planner Burhop stated it does not say and just says it is a continuation fee.
Chair Henry stated if they decided at midnight to continue something to the next meeting he did not think it appropriate to apply the fee.
Planner Burhop stated it should only apply if applicant requests it.
Chair Henry stated they should take a look at this.
Planner Burhop stated the fee schedule says continuation fee and it is specific to variations.
Member Bay asked if an application is denied can they come to the next meeting with the same application and re-apply.
Planner Burhop stated they could submit the next day and they would have to properly notice and pay the fees.
Chair Henry stated he had spoken with Steve Elrod and Art Passman and Planner Burhop had spoken with Corporate Counsel and they stated it was possible.
Councilman Stolberg stated Council would take this up if they were asked. If it became a problem they would consider it. There are some applications that cannot resubmit for a year.
Member Fettner stated if there was a denial someone could keep coming back and not change anything. He thought there should be something that addresses this in the code.
Member Bay stated maybe at some point they should talk about the number of times someone could resubmit.
Member Cullather stated there was an instance recently where the applicant knew he had the four votes but they were not at the same meeting and it was continued.
Chair Henry stated they should have this discussion regarding continuances and potential abuse of the Board’s leniency. There were three Board members who felt that perhaps the Board was being taken advantage of. He was not sure he wanted a hard and fast rule because it should be within the discretion of the Board.
Member Bay stated in litigation after a certain number of continuances a judge can mark the matter final.
Chair Henry stated they should have this as a future topic for discussion for the Board.
Planner Burhop stated 226 N. Deere Park East was approved by Council.
Chair Henry stated he received a call from Councilman Blumberg regarding this and encouraged him to view the video of the meeting and listen to the discussion. It is gratifying that Council takes what the Board does seriously and they gave it a full and fair hearing.
Councilman Stolberg stated he was not in favor of it, but the way it was presented made it easy to make an informed decision. He appreciated it made their job easier.
Student Rep. Hoyt asked if it was possible to have a rule for last minute continuances.
Chair Henry stated if there is not a request for continuance by the time they have to post and once on the agenda they do not have to address it, but it is there and publicly noticed. There could be a real emergency and they should have further discussion on this and you cannot come back unless the application is different and a fee.
VIII. Miscellaneous: None
Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:00 pm.