CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK. Thursday, April 19, 2018 REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, IL

Transcription

1 CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, IL MEETING DATE: MEETING LOCATION: Council Chambers, City Hall, 1707 St. Johns Avenue, Highland Park, IL 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: Chaplik, Cullather, Fettner, Henry, Putzel Members Absent: Bay, Bina Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present. Staff Present: Burhop, Davis Student Rep.: Gordon Council Liaison: None II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel. On a voice vote the Chair declared the motioned carried unanimously. III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None V. OLD BUSINESS: 1. #17-11-VAR-050 Property: 867 Broadview Ave. Zoning District: R6 Appellant: Heather Curtis Address: 867 Broadview Ave., Highland Park, IL of 17

2 Chair Henry entertained a motion to adopt the draft order of denial. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously. 2. #18-02-VAR-003 Property: 436 Hazel Ave. Zoning District: R5 Appellant: Marlex LLC Address: P.O. Box 18248, Chicago, IL Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the draft order of denial. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed unanimously. 3. # VAR-004 Property: 1550 Museum Dr. Zoning District: R2 Appellant: Greg Hajdich/Gilriz Const. Address: 5307 Business Parkway, Ringwood, IL Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, new items/revisions, proposed landscape plan, fence renderings, ZBA history, aerial photo of property, site photos, plat of survey, other notes and requested variation. Planner Burhop said the fence was revised, reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet in height. Chair Henry asked how far down the fence was from the subject property. Planner Burhop stated the subject property is to the NE of the intersection and the other 8 fence is past the stop light to the west. Mr. Dave Gillespie, Gillespie Design Group, 5307 Business Pkwy., Ringwood, IL, Applicant, made a presentation including they want to be consistent with neighboring fences, landscaping in front of fence, difference between wood and metal, proposing different fence with aluminum frame and powder coated with horizontal wood, fits in with natural landscaping, metal fences adjacent, wants privacy, willing to move fence to 16 off property line, lowered from 8 to 6, fence provides elegant look, proposed landscaping in front of fence. Planner Burhop stated in the revised hardship letter he talked about a change in material. The way the approval order is written it does not reference the narrative. Planner Burhop corrected his presentation, and stated the applicant had provided information in the revised hardship letter regarding the materials type. Chair Henry asked Planner Burhop to remind the Board of this fact if they make a determination. 2 of 17

3 Ms. Paula Serlin, 2650 Point Dr., Highland Park, IL, stated they had talked to Gilriz and they are trying to accommodate them and the fence would be nice with the proper landscaping. She saw a different plan for vegetation with a row of arbor vitae which she thought appropriate. She asked how long will the vegetation run. Mr. Gillespie stated they spoke with the City Forester and he encouraged them to go ahead and start planting in front of the fence. The intent is to go all the way across the fence. They are trying to match the rendering. Chair Henry asked if the landscaping will go the entire length of the fence as it fronts Half Day Rd. Mr. Gillespie confirmed this. Member Putzel asked to see a slide of the front of the house. Planner Burhop illustrated the view on the slide and explained how the house is situated. Member Putzel stated she thought it met the standards for fences, contributes favorably to the environment, and is compatible with the neighborhood. She appreciated the changes. It is not detrimental to the harmony of the growth of the City, and will not cause depreciation. It is an unusual property with a major thoroughfare and the back yard is considered the front yard. They have not created the hardship and it will not be detrimental to the public. It will not impair the light or air and is in harmony with the zoning code. They have worked with the neighbors and are trying to make it look appealing. The fence proposal looks nicer than the two types of fences that are out there. She would support the application. Member Cullather stated he agreed and was concerned about the 8 height and appreciated the 6 height. It makes maintenance easier and he liked this type of fence and the landscaping. He thought it would be a nice benefit to the drive along Half Day Rd. Student Rep. Gordon stated the 8 height was the main concern and bringing it to 6 height adds artistic value and it blends in. Member Fettner stated he would support this and the need for a 6 fence for privacy and safety. He appreciated the dialog with the neighbors and thought aesthetically it was an upgrade. Vice Chair Chaplik agreed and appreciated the effort to revise plan and plantings and reduction in the height. He agreed it met the standards for the fence and traditional zoning variance standards and would support it. Chair Henry stated he agreed and appreciated the applicant listening to the comments of the Board and neighbors. The height has been reduced and set back farther from the property line. The vegetation has also been revised. He would support the application. 3 of 17

4 Member Fettner asked if they wanted to include the new fence material information being part of the approval order. Chair Henry stated that what has been presented today. The applicant has presented both with the original and revised material, the presentation today and with respect to the construction material of the fence would have to be inserted in the approval order. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Member Fettner motioned to approve the variance as requested and presented on April 19 th and findings of fact and to wait on the approval order to be adopted once so revised. Member Cullather seconded. Planner Burhop stated they are directing staff to draft the approval order approving as presented today, with the height and fence materials. The draft approval order for next meeting will include either an additional document or revision to the existing document to indicate the material in the fence as presented today. Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: None The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0. Chair Henry asked Planner Burhop to make sure the order reflects the additional material submitted after the original application as well as what was presented tonight. 4. # VAR-006 Property: 251 Ravine Dr. Zoning District: R4 Appellant: Nicole and Aaron Gerber Address: 251 Ravine Dr., Highland Park, IL Planner Burhop stated the application has not changed and made a presentation including project background, ZBA history, NRC consideration, existing topography, plat of survey, site plan, neighborhood FAR, SSZ slide, Section exemptions, floor plans, elevations, engineering review, forestry review, requested SSZ variations and requested variation. Member Fettner asked if there was any work being done in the ravine itself. Planner Burhop stated the porch and deck are within the SSZ, as well as part of the mudroom. Member Fettner asked about the NRC s findings. Planner Burhop stated they have seven basic standards and the NRC recommended unanimously for approval based on the standards. The original back patio was being 4 of 17

5 restored back to its natural state. They stated it was net neutral or there was a slight benefit to the ravine. The minutes are in the packet. Mr. Cal Bernstein, 1473 Sherwood Highland Park, IL, Attorney, stated they continued to have discussion with the neighbor but have been unable to reach an understanding. It is a unique property in Highland Park and is over 100 years old. They are trying to update the property and make it vibrant. It is a diminius request of 36 s.f. He thought there was rationale for granting relief. The neighbor to the east supports the application and has a porch structure into the bluff. There are several structures into the ravine in this area. Mr. Eric Johnson, 758 N. Larabee, Chicago, IL, Architect, made a presentation including the relief requested, they want to enlarge the kitchen and mud room, decided the best area for the porch was over the ravine and it ties in with the existing structure, elevations, had looked at other ideas for porch, porch is light weight, has a low pitched roof, and is tied into the house and will cover the area that is eroding. Ms. Heidi Natura, Living Habitats, 6575 N. Avondale, Chicago, IL, Landscape Architect, made a presentation including the NRC has studied the application and the changes are neutral to beneficial to the ravine, seven NRC standards, new gutter system with no runoff to the ravine, project a is net sum benefit, will remove existing impervious back patio, earth moving kept to a minimum, hand digging only, preserving and enhancing the landscape, benefit to understory vegetation, City Forester stated restoration plan is comprehensive, native plantings to be added, avoidance of any tree removal, minimize disruption of natural drainage, minimize time areas are bare and exposed, minimize amount of impervious surface next to steep slopes, designed structure so weight does not jeopardize stability, modest improvement to allow access to property. Design team has worked diligently and with careful intention to honor Highland Park s ordinances related to this type of development. Mr. Bernstein stated mentioned the standards, reasonable return, little table land on the property, seeking to improve 100-year home, hardship is entire property and it is nonconforming, not detrimental to other properties in neighborhood, trees will mitigate sight line, NRC found it is a new benefit to the bluff, several houses in area with porches, will not alter the essential character of neighborhood, will create a more stable bluff, removal of impervious surface, have reached out to neighbor and are unable to reach an agreement. Mr. Thomas McMenamin, 259 Ravine Dr., Highland Park, IL, made a presentation including neighborhood FAR, site photos, it is a self-created hardship, SSZ ordinance is not just erosion but aesthetics, made porch into a room, can you convert a room and then argue hardship, does not want building into the ravine, does not object to the first and second parts of the proposal. Member Fettner stated he appreciated the argument and asked if there was any type of work in the rear he would find acceptable. Mr. McMenamin stated they would prefer the porch not be built and thought the side deck is adequate and they would see the ravine. 5 of 17

6 Mr. Bernstein stated the porch was not enclosed by the applicant. When they bought the house it was already enclosed. Ms. Natura stated it is not true that they can see the ravine from the side. They are protecting the vegetation that is there and it buffers the space between the garage and the house. The breadth of the property is unavailable to them unless they are inside the house. From this standpoint it is a hardship. In its current condition it is not an outdoor space for them. Member Cullather asked if they can see the ravine from the side deck. Ms. Natura stated the only way to see the property is to come around to the back. Mr. Bernstein stated the porch is not a large structure. Member Putzel asked Mr. McMenamin if they would be able to see the porch if it was added to the house, however can they still see the ravine. Mr. McMenamin stated they could and the natural environment has to be respected. Member Putzel asked if they could still see the ravine. Mr. McMenamin replied yes. Member Fettner thanked the petitioner and neighbor for their input. They take SSZ cases very seriously and a lot of ravine properties are in disrepair. They encourage improvements and it does not necessarily make it bad. He put a lot of stock in what the NRC stated and they stated there was a net benefit. Even if it was a self-made hardship, the hardship is the whole property and 95% of it is unbuildable and in the SSZ. There is no real use or enjoyment of the exterior unless the improvements are done. They are as minimal as possible and he was inclined to support the application. Member Cullather thanked staff, consultants and the neighbor for their comments. He asked if they could split the vote between the variances. There are two different issues. He did not see a problem with the mud room and side of house. He liked the look of the deck and was concerned about the porch into the SSZ even though it is being cantilevered. He thought the hardship was there, but the property can receive a reasonable return without the porch. Member Putzel stated she agreed and there has been some really wonderful work done. She thought it was a great investment and they cannot do anything with the way property the way it is. She was struggling with the porch and because the property is nonconforming, at what point do they say that is enough. Vice Chair Chaplik stated it would have been easier for him if there was more decking. He saw the challenge for the house and the hardship. He thought there were alternates 6 of 17

7 that could make it less intrusive into the ravine mainly on the side of the house. He stated he could go either way. Chair Henry stated he was in the same position as other the other members. The mudroom and deck do not bother him, but he was having trouble with the porch. He applauded the work that has been done and felt it was thoughtful. The NRC felt it met the requirements they are required to apply, but their charge is different. He was troubled by the porch and could not support that part of the application. Mr. Bernstein stated the applicant is requesting to bifurcate parts 2 (deck) and 3 (mudroom) from 1 (porch). In October 2017 they found for the property at 1425 Sheridan a cantilevered porch structure, larger than this one and met all the standards. The property had less table land and less area to view the ravine than the current property. They believe this property meets all the standards. Chair Henry stated there would be two motions. Vice Chair Chaplik made a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the appellant s request for improvements noted as #2, the deck and the FAR and the physical improvements noted as #3 the mudroom on the site plan. Member Fettner seconded. Planner Burhop stated this was to direct staff to draft an approval order for #2 and #3, being the deck and mudroom. Planner Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: None The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0 Chair Henry entertained a motion for #1. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order item #1, the porch. Member Cullather seconded. Planner Burhop stated this was a motion to direct staff to draft an approval order regarding the improvements for #1, the porch. Planner Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Fettner Nays: Putzel, Cullather, Chaplik, Henry The Chair declared the Motion failed of 17

8 Member Cullather moved to deny the application as far as it relates to the porch. Member Fettner seconded. Vice Chair Chaplik stated asked if they could leave this open to think about it. Member Putzel this is giving the applicant an option to revise it. Chair Henry stated if they do not grant an application it remains before the Board. If they deny an application then it is finished. Mr. Bernstein asked if there is a motion to deny the relief requested in #1 will the order be entered tonight because the 35 days for appeal would start tonight. Chair Henry stated it would be a subsequent order because a written order would be written and presented. A 35-day review goes from entry of the official order. Planner Burhop stated the Board can either approve, approve with conditions, deny or continue. Mr. Bernstein stated the applicants agreed to bifurcate the application. Mr. Bernstein stated they would like to continue with item #1, the porch. Chair Henry asked if they wanted hold off on the approval order for items #2 and #3. Mr. Bernstein stated they wanted to proceed with these. Member Cullather stated he would withdraw his motion to deny. Planner Burhop stated the next meeting was May 3, Mr. Bernstein stated they could report at the next meeting if they have an alternate design or if they want to go ahead with the vote on the porch. Chair Henry entertained a motion to continue item #1 to May 3, Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Putzel. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously. VI. NEW BUSINESS: 1. #18-03-VAR-007 Property: 21 Lakewood Pl. Zoning District: R4 Appellant: 21 LKW PL, LLC Address: 814 W. Kingsley Dr., Arlington Heights, IL Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location map, project background, site photos, requested SSZ variations, existing site plan, proposed 8 of 17

9 site plan, proposed elevation plans, structural plans, floor plans, breakdown of encroachments, NRC review and requested variation. Vice Chair Chaplik asked about the neighbor s letter and the slab of concrete that is tipping over. He asked if the NRC s requirements cover remediation or reconstruction of this piece of concrete. Planner Burhop stated he did not recall the NRC s conversation and minutes were included with the packet. Planner Burhop stated the NRC s review focuses on the proposed ground deck. Chair Henry stated you cannot have more than 300 s.f. of deck or patio within 40 of the bluff edge. He asked if that included the roof. The deck they are proposing is not very large. Planner Burhop stated it is about 100 s.f. Chair Henry asked what is included in the calculations that required relief. Planner Burhop stated the combined total of patio and deck is already over the 300 s.f. If you are building within an existing footprint it can be done by right. Chair Henry asked where the patio and deck are right now that adds into the square footage. Planner Burhop illustrated the location on the site plan and explained there was a large portion of existing patio on the property. Chair Henry asked, if approved, would they be cutting back on part of the patio. Planner Burhop stated there is a portion of the patio to be restored to pervious surface with plantings, so yes, there would be an overall net reduction in patio and deck surface. Chair Henry asked if the patio they are proposing going to be on land that is already patio. Planner Burhop stated yes except for the tree area. It will be a raised deck, mounted on the ground and attached to the home. Mr. Dermot Horgan, 814 W. Kingsley, Arlington Heights, IL, Applicant, stated he wants to restore the house to its original condition. The bluff needs stabilization and updating and they have addressed the technical issues. Mr. Angelo Biondi, 1815 Spruce, Highland Park, IL, Architect, stated there is no access to the lake and the only logical place was off the kitchen. The ground deck triggered the three variances. There is little disturbance of the land area. The stairs are 12 wide to open up the area and they thought it was a design plus. The stone patio will have minimal 9 of 17

10 impact to the bluff. There is no structural impact to the bluff. The NRC has approved subject to conditions. Chair Henry asked where they are removing part of the patio. Mr. Biondi illustrated where they would be removing part of the patio. It would be restored to a natural area. It is currently impervious and would become pervious. The drainage and grading remain the same and downspouts are connected to underground storm lines. Member Fettner asked the architect to speak to the standards. Mr. Biondi stated they did not create the issue and it was created by the original siding of house and the changing ordinances over time. It does not change the character of the neighborhood or affect light or bulk and it does not devalue the neighbors property. They are not approaching this as an investment and the owner does not want to flip it. The NRC agreed with their standards. Vice Chair Chaplik stated the stairs are 12 x 3. When they see stairs they run down a slope into the ravine. He asked if the definition of width implies it runs with the slope or is it irrelevant. He thought if the stairs faced the other direction there would not be a code issue. Planner Burhop stated stairs are allowed with the SSZ and cannot be wider than 5. Mr. Biondi stated the code was written to address stairs that are excavated into the bluff and down the bluff. These are surface stairs and they are not cutting into the bluff. Vice Chair Chaplik asked how the piece of concrete was resolved. Mr. Biondi stated this was addressed with the NRC and engineering. They have acknowledged that restoration of the bluff area is a separate project. This will be part of Phase 2. Mr. Horgan stated this has been a long standing issue. Vice Chair Chaplik stated he found this project easier than last one. The stairs are a bit of a semantic argument and the code was really written for stairs going down a grade or carved into the soil. In this case there is not an issue. The total s.f. of deck is not offensive and they preserving home that would be otherwise torn down. He saw the hardship in that the patio is unusable and he would support the application. Member Putzel agreed and thought it met the standards and was a beautiful remodel and would support the application. Member Fettner agreed and stated he would support the application. 10 of 17

11 Member Cullather agreed and stated he would support the application and appreciated the efforts to preserve an existing house. Chair Henry agreed and stated it is reducing the square feet by 53 s.f. and removes more of the impervious surface. He would support the application. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Vice Chair Chaplik so motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the variance as requested. Member Fettner seconded. Planner Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: None The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0. Chair Henry entertained a motion to approve the draft approval order. Member Cullather so motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Chaplik. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously. 2. #18-04-VAR-008 Property: 188 Roger Williams Ave. Zoning District: R4 Appellant: Daniel and Sandy Lieb Address: 188 Roger Williams Ave., Highland Park, IL Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including project background, previous ZBA consideration, requested relief, Compere referral, Council consideration, approved and proposed front elevations, side and rear elevations, photos, plat of survey, site plan and requested variation. Mr. Bob Schrago, 1171 Beach Ln., Highland Park, IL, Consultant, made a presentation including they are not building the addition at the rear and had reduced the FAR by 650 s.f., and want to eliminate the twin peaks. Mr. Daniel Leib, 188 Roger Williams, Highland Park, IL, Applicant, stated they want a normal size roof and it looks better with one peak. Chair Henry asked if the neighbors had been notified. Mr. Leib stated they notified all the affected neighbors and have not heard back. Planner Burhop stated he had not heard from the neighbors and had copies of the certified mailing receipts. Member Putzel stated this was a minimal change and would be an improvement to the drainage which is the hardship. She would support the application. 11 of 17

12 Member Fettner stated it meets the standards and would support the application. Member Cullather stated this is not a must have and could not support the application. Vice Chair Chaplik stated if this were new construction he would say design it differently. They are trying to repair a design error. With the snow and rain that type of drainage area on the roof is not a great idea. He thought it would correct the drainage and it is minimal. He thought it met the standards and would support the application. Chair Henry agreed and thought it was deminimus change. The change does not add to bulk and he would support the application. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Vice Chair Chaplik motioned to prepare findings of fact and an order approving the variance as requested. Seconded by Member Fettner. Planner Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Putzel, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: Cullather The Chair declared the Motion passed 4-1. Chair Henry entertained a motion to adopt the final order as drafted. Vice Chair Chaplik motioned to approve the order as presented. Seconded by Member Fettner. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion passed 4-1. Member Cullather voted no. 3. #18-04-VAR-009 Property: 280 Laurel Ave. Zoning District: R5 Appellant: Corey and Julie Dunne Address: 729 S. Summit St., Barrington, IL Planning Intern Davis made a presentation for the above item including project location, project background, aerial photo, photos, existing conditions, proposed site plan, proposed floor plan, proposed elevations, neighborhood FAR, notes and requested variation. Member Putzel asked about the from the neighbor. Planner Davis stated they had no objections to the garage. Chair Henry asked about the lot size and how it compares to others in the neighborhood. Planner Burhop stated they did not have the lot areas, though the subject property itself was slightly undersized just below 12,000 sf. 12 of 17

13 Chair Henry asked about the zoning. Planner Davis stated it was R5. Chair Henry asked how large the lots were. Planner Davis stated the zoning requirement is 12,000 s.f. and this lot is undersized. Member Fettner asked how many properties on the street have detached garages. Planner Burhop illustrated the garages. Vice Chair Chaplik asked if this house was entitled to the bonus FAR. Planner Burhop stated he made sure they included the bonus FAR. Their proposal is more than the bonus FAR. Under the current proposal they would not be eligible for the bonus FAR. He did not know if they would be eligible otherwise but suspected so. Mr. Corey Dunne, 729 S. Summit, Barrington, IL, Architect, stated they purchased the property at beginning of the year and want to restore the home. They have stayed within the existing envelope and the variance is to build a two-car detached garage in the rear. The hardship is that a two-car detached garage is standard in today s world. Ms. Julie Dunne, 729 S. Summit, Barrington, IL, Architect, stated a two-car garage is standard and 24 x 24 meets current standards and allows you to open the car doors in the garage. At some point there was a garage and it was taken down before the 1980s. It will mirror the neighbor s garage in size and bulk. It is the logical place for a garage. Mr. Dunne stated the hardship is they have an undersized non-conforming lot size coupled with the existing structure which is over the FAR. They did not create the hardship. The variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare and structures in the vicinity have detached garages. Ms. Dunne stated the roof pitch will match the existing house. Mr. Dunne stated it will not impair light or air and will not alter the essential character of neighborhood. It is not a variance for the primary structure. Member Cullather asked if records of the previous garage existed. Planner Burhop stated there was variation that was withdrawn at least 10 years ago and someone wanted to move a barn to serve as a garage there but it did not happen. He did not know if there was a garage or not prior to this application. Chair Henry asked if there was a plat of survey. Member Cullather asked if there was a demolition permit showing the garage was demolished. 13 of 17

14 Planner Burhop stated he would have to research this if there was a garage on the property in the past. Member Cullather stated he did not have a problem with application. The from neighbor stated they had no objection. He thought it met the standards and would support the application. Member Fettner stated he was familiar with the property and commended the applicant. The lot is undersized and there is no garage. The FAR has been consistent with the number of properties on the block. He thought it met the standards and would support the application. Member Putzel stated not having a garage is the hardship and would support the application. Vice Chair Chaplik agreed and thought it met the hardship and would support the application. Chair Henry agreed and thought it met the standards. It is an undersized lot which skews the FAR calculation. He would support the application. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Member Fettner motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and approval order approving the variance as requested. Member Cullather seconded. Planner Burhop called the roll: Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: None The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Vice Chair Chaplik motion to approve the order as prepared. Member Fettner seconded. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion carried unanimously. 4. #18-04-VAR-011 Property: 1000 Central Ave. (formerly known as Central Ave. and Deerfield Rd.) Zoning District: RM1 Appellant: CSH Highland Park, LLC (aka Capitol Seniors Housing) Address: 1275 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 2 nd Fl., Washington, DC Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, Capitol Seniors Housing (CSH) project background, fence chapter variation, other City reviews, site photos, proposed building, fence elevation plans and requested variation. 14 of 17

15 Chair Henry asked to see the site plan and if the red lines were the property lines. Planner Burhop confirmed this. Member Cullather asked if the sidewalks were outside the property lines. Planner Burhop stated yes. Mr. Lawrence Freedman, Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan, 77 W. Washington, Chicago, IL, Attorney, stated the Plan Commission recommended approval of the site plan including the fences, City Council directed the ordinance be prepared, Corporate Counsel discovered the Plan Commission could not approve a variation from the fence ordinance as opposed to the zoning code. The reason for the request is that the height cannot exceed 4 in the front yard. The fences are 7 and 6 and the top 1 is lattice. The purpose is to form an integral part of the function of that part of the building. The one on the north is memory care and the one on the south is assisted living. The memory care is higher because it is very important to be at 7 as there is a disturbing effect on residents to the extent they can see out and it causes them to want to go out to the street. They do not believe there would be an impact on the south side (golf course) and on north side (residential). Vice Chair Chaplik asked if this is contingent on the overall approval of the PUD. Planner Burhop stated this is a separate consideration and the ZBA authorizes fence height relief. If the ZBA does not approve the fence height relief, the applicant would have to modify their plans for the PUD consideration to meet fence code. Mr. Freedman stated Council voted to approve and they will consider the final approval documents Monday night. Planner Burhop stated Council has directed the approval documents and the fence height issue is up to the Board. Mr. Freedman stated if Council does not approve they will not build the fence. Member Cullather stated if they approve the fence it is specific to this project. Member Fettner asked when this was approved by the Design Review Commission (Plan and Design Commission) and the City Council if they had the fence design and specifications. Mr. Freedman stated they thought the DRC (PDC) had the authority to grant the variation. Planner Burhop stated the fence variation was discussed in the staff report for the Plan and Design Commission. The PDC thought they were granting relief in allowing this. 15 of 17

16 Member Fettner stated he had no problem in approving this as presented. The approval is specific to the plan itself. Member Cullather stated he had no problem and understood the reasons for the higher fences. Member Putzel agreed and had no additional comments. Vice Chair Chaplik stated assuming City Council completes its process, this will meet all the standards for the fences as proposed and he would support it. Chair Henry stated he generally had issues with fences that exceed what the code provides in residential areas. However, this is a different circumstance and it is commercial as well as single family and the use of the property is different than what they normally see. It is not going around the whole property and is discrete and is setback from the property line and sidewalk. With these considerations he would support the variation. Chair Henry entertained a motion. Member Cullather motioned to approve the variance as requested by the applicant contingent upon it being approved by Council. Vice Chair Chaplik seconded. Member Putzel asked if they could modify this by saying contingent upon it being approved. Planner Burhop stated the motion was to direct staff to prepare an approval order with the condition that this approval be contingent on City Council approval. Planner Burhop called he roll: Ayes: Putzel, Cullather, Fettner, Chaplik, Henry Nays: None The Chair declared the Motion passed 5-0. Chair Henry stated Planner Burhop can represent to City Council that they have approved this contingent upon their approval. Chair Henry stated it is subject to Council approval. He read from the draft order on page 2: it is therefore ordered as follows (a) subject to and contingent upon the conditions, restrictions and provisions set forth in paragraph (b) of this order. He proposed inserting and subject to the final approval of the City Council. Planner Burhop stated they have to approve the PUD. Chair Henry stated he wanted this to be final so Council can deal with it. 16 of 17

17 Vice Chair Chaplik asked about inserting approval by the City Council and the construction of the fence. Planner Burhop stated the application number is PUD-007. Chair Henry stated with the amendment he would entertain a motion approving the draft variance order as amended. Vice Chair Chaplik motioned to approve the draft order as amended. Member Fettner seconded. On a voice vote, the Chair declared the motion as amended carried unanimously. The chair wrote the amendment and signed the Approval Order. VII. STAFF REPORT: Planner Burhop stated he would be forwarding a copy of an from the City Manager regarding attendance. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: a) Discussion of Curfew or Application Limit for Board Meetings b) Discussion on Continuance Guidelines IX. ADJOURNMENT Chair Henry entertained a motioned to adjourn. Member Fettner so motioned, seconded by Member Cullather. On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 10:55 PM. Respectfully submitted, Karl Burhop THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE COMPLETED AFTER THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED: MINUTES APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON May 3, 2018 [date] # WITH NO CORRECTIONS X WITH CORRECTIONS (SEE MINUTES OF [x] MEETING FOR CORRECTIONS 17 of 17