Zoning Board of Appeals

1 APPROVED 2 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 3 VILLAGE OF NORTHBROOK 4 COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS 5 June 23, 2014 6 7 1. Call to Order 8 Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Board room of Village Hall. Members 9 Craig, Geslicki, Lown, Sussholz and Wolfmark were present. A quorum was present. 10 11 Village Staff present included Tom Poupard, Director Development and Planning Services, Village of 12 Northbrook; Stewart Weiss, Village Attorney; and Julie Weldon, Recorder. 13 14 2. Review of Minutes 15 Member Sussholz, seconded by Member Wolfmark, motioned to approve the minutes of the May 19, 16 2014 meeting, as presented. On a voice vote, the minutes carried unanimously. 17 18 3. General Public Comments 19 There were no comments from the public. 20 21 4. Public Hearing & Consideration of the following Petitions: 22 Chairman Decker that four positive votes from Members would be required to pass any of the requests 23 proposed this evening. 24 25 Chairman Decker announced that the dockets would first be heard in the public hearing portion of the 26 meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the dockets would occur immediately following the 27 hearing, during the regular meeting. If members of the audience are not able to stay for the regular 28 meeting, they can contact the Zoning Administrator for results. Petitioners will be sworn in and should 29 address the Board. Neighbors within 250 ft. were notified of each petition. As required by state statute, 30 the hearing notice for all dockets were properly published in the Northbrook Star on June 5, 2014. 31 32 A. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-6 (32 Bridlewood Road) – REVISED – Petition by Oleg and Lana Levit, as contract 33 purchasers, for variations to: (A) reduce the required western interior side yard setback from 40 feet 34 to 25 feet; and (B) reduce the required southern front yard setback for a through lot from 60 feet to 35 40 feet from the prescriptive right-of-way for Voltz Road. The property is commonly known as 32 36 Bridlewood Road (PREI No. 04-11-302-022-0000) and is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential 37 district. The variation is requested to allow the construction of a new single family home on the 38 property. 39 40 Werner Sabo attorney, architect Scott K. Renken and Oleg and Lana Levit were sworn in. Petitioner 41 was asked if notice to the neighbors was provided. Petitioner advised- yes. 42 43 Regarding the standards for variation, the Mr. Sabo asked that the Board consider the following: 44 1. The lot is nonconforming and has an unusual shape. 45 2. This is new construction and there are options for designing the home around the setbacks. 46 3. The applicants have the right to have a home and accessory facilities on the Property  Minutes of the June 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 4. It is left to the ZBA to determine whether a home of this size and having the garage areas 2 requested represents a special privilege. 3 5. With the exception of the two (2) requested setback variations, the proposed home complies 4 with all other Zoning Code requirements in terms of FRA, height, lot coverage and building 5 coverage. 6 6. The ZBA should consider whether or not the variations will fit the character of the area. 7 8 Architect Scott K. Renken described the issue with the garages. The proposed plan has two sets of 9 garages that would have access to the Bridlewood Drive and the larger garage on the south end of 10 the home would have access via Voltz Road. The total number of garage spaces is 12, although the 11 space could hold as many as 15-18 cars. The southern garage would primarily be for storage of the 12 Applicant’s car collection. 13 14 Member Geslicki asked if they discussed any other design options. Architect Renken said they gave 15 up the tennis court. The architect wanted a symmetrical look for the 6-car garage on the north side. 16 17 Member Sussholz suggested another option would be to have the garages be reduced in size and to 18 enter from the south end for 6 of the garages and the north end for the other 6 garages. This option 19 would not require a variance. Member Sussholz asked the size of the south garage. The Architect 20 said it was 1,500 sq. ft. which could house more than 6 cars. The house is 5,000 sq. ft. (3,000 on the 21 first floor and 2,000 on the second floor). 22 23 Member Geslicki asked if they had wished to address the objections from the neighbors’ attorney. 24 Petitioner replied that did not wish to respond. 25 26 Chairman Decker asked if there were comments from the audience. 27 28 Jeffrey Rosenberg, Attorney for two of the adjacent property owners was sworn in. Attorney 29 Rosenberg stated that the request for variance should not even be considered because according to 30 the zoning code no dwelling may be erected on a nonconforming lot, and this property is a 31 nonconforming lot. 32 33 Attorney Rosenberg said despite the erroneous conclusion by the Village Attorney determination 34 that the tract of land was a legal lot of record, he asked the Board to consider the following: 35  That this I not a practical hardship in that it is not a unique physical condition. 36  That the situation was self-created, the applicants new the size of the lot and went in 37 knowing they wanted a specific number and size of garage space. 38  The garage does not constitute the denial of special privilege. 39  Compliance with code states that the R1 district is the most restricted district. 40  The essential character of the area – an oversized residence squeezed in between two other 41 residences will have a detrimental effect on the value of those residences on either side of 42 the Property. 43  A driveway on the north side will create additional safety hazards on Voltz Rd. 44 45 Bruce Huvard, Attorney for the Bridlewood Club was sworn in. Attorney Huvard asked the ZBA to 46 consider the following: 2  Minutes of the June 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1  Maintain the character of the area, keep the house to look like the rest in the area with 2 trees and land surrounding it. 3  Shouldn’t approve the granting of a variance to further erode the character of the area. 4  Shouldn’t be a self-created hardship, the purchaser knew the size of the lot and shouldn’t be 5 able to come in now and say that it is a hardship and requesting a variance to accommodate 6 their design. 7 8 Scott Barrett, Property owner of 46 Bridlewood Lane was sworn in. Mr. Barrett asked the ZBA to 9 consider that the variance has nothing to do with the residence, but strictly to do with parking cars. 10 Chairman Decker stated that they would consider it the same if the owner was asking for a 7th 11 bedroom or some other part of a house, that the issue is not that it is a garage. 12 13 Chairman Decker asked if there were any other comments from the audience. There being none, 14 Chairman Decker asked for a motion to close the public hearing. 15 16 Member Craig, seconded by Member Lown moved to close the public hearing. On a voice vote, the 17 motion carried unanimously 18 19 Members noted their objections to the request and how alternative designs were possible. 20 21 Chairman Decker asked the Petitioners if they wished to modify their application and return at a 22 future date. 23 24 The Petitioner responded that they would like the Board to vote on the request as submitted. 25 26 Member Craig, seconded by Member Lown to deny the proposed variation request by Oleg and 27 Lana Levit, as contract purchasers, for variations to the property commonly known as 32 Bridlewood 28 Road to: (A) reduce the required western interior side yard setback from 40 feet to 25 feet; and (B) 29 reduce the required southern front yard setback for a through lot from 60 feet to 40 feet from the 30 prescriptive right-of-way for Voltz Road. 31 32 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 33 34 B. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-7 (2500 Cherry Lane – Westmoor School) – Petition by School District 28, as 35 property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required interior side yard along the 36 eastern property line for a parking lot from 20 feet to 3.9 feet. The Property is commonly known as 37 2500 Cherry Lane (PREI No. 04-09-102-012-0000 and the western 60 feet of 04-09-040-0000) and is 38 located in the 1B, Institutional Buildings, zoning district. The variation is requested to allow the 39 construction of an expanded parking lot for the school. 40 41 Petitioners Larry Hewitt, Shawn Benson, Leanne Meyer-Smith were sworn in. Petitioner was asked if 42 notice to the neighbors was provided. Petitioner advised- yes. 43 44 Petitioner asked that the Board consider the following: 45  The school has limited land available to meet the needs of the residents of Northbrook. 46  The parking lot expansion is necessary to operate safely. 47  The current design has issues with getting buses and fire trucks in. 3  Minutes of the June 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1  An addition of 10-12 staff members will be added and will need parking spaces, for a total of 2 90 cars but not at one time, it is a half day program so 45 cars in the morning and 45 in the 3 afternoon. 4  Additional children will not be walking to school, they are 3-5 years old, so they will be 5 driven to school. 6  There is a concern with inclement weather days, more traffic with cold, rain, snow means 7 the amount of traffic picks up around the school. 8 9 Petitioner stated that there will be a landscaping buffer on the property line on the east side. The 10 church has agreed to allow the school to use some of the church property to rebuild a hedge if they 11 need to. At this time is it determined that the buses will use the west side. Petitioner said they had 12 outreach meetings with neighbors and believe that all of their concerns have been addressed. 13 14 There being no members of the public wishing to speak, Member Geslicki, seconded by Member 15 Lown moved to close the public hearing. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 16 17 Member Lown, seconded by Member Sussholz to accept the petition by School District 28, as 18 property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required interior side yard along the 19 eastern property line of 2500 Cherry Lane from 20 feet to 4.2 feet to allow the construction of an 20 expanded parking lot for the school, with the following condition: 21 22  That the addition be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed by the 23 Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23, 2014. 24 25 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 26 27 C. DOCKET NO. 14-Z-8 (2271 Dehne Road) – Petition by DSM Properties, Inc. (2225 Greenview Rd. 28 Northbrook), as property owners, for a Zoning Code variation to reduce the required corner side 29 yard from 30 feet to 25.5 feet. The Property is commonly known as 2271 Dehne Road (PREI No. 04- 30 16-209-009-0000) and is located in the R-4, Single Family Residential, zoning district. The variation is 31 requested to allow the construction of a new single family home on the property. 32 33 Petitioners Mark Farrahar, and Selwyn Marcus were sworn in. Petitioner was asked if notice to the 34 neighbors was provided. Petitioner advised- yes. 35 36 Petitioner described the variations and discussed the proposed home in the drawings provided to 37 members in their packets. Mr. Marcus said that the new home would be no closer to the street than 38 the existing home which will be demolished. 39 40 Discussion included the Petitioner reiterating that they were trying to save the tree line along 41 Glendale and trying to avoid having to alter the existing storm drainage swale along Glendale. 42 43 Member Decker asked if the trees on Glendale would be affected. Petitioner said it would not. 44 45 Member Sussholz asked if they were required to put in a sidewalk. Tom Poupard said that the 46 Village no longer requires developers to put in a sidewalk when individual single-family homes are 47 built. 4  Minutes of the June 23, 2014 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 2 Member Decker asked if anyone from the audience wanted to speak. 3 4 Property owner of 1871 Glendale was sworn in. He asked if the trees would be protected. 5 6 Tom Poupard said the village does have a tree protection ordinance. If you cut down a healthy tree 7 it must be replaced with other trees to make up for the removal of a tree. 8 9 Property owner of 2251 Dehne was sworn in. He expressed concern about the flow of water 10 because if a swale fills up the water cascades over the road and it creates hardship for neighboring 11 homes. If the home is pushed out further there will be less room for water. 12 13 Member Sussholz said that the swale is on public property not the Petitioner’s property. 14 15 Tom Poupard stated that the developer must comply with the Village’s standards for water 16 drainage. 17 18 Member Geslicki, seconded by Member Lown moved to close the public hearing. On a voice vote, 19 the motion carried unanimously. 20 21 Member Craig, seconded by Member Sussholz to accept the proposed variation request by DSM 22 Properties, Inc. (2225 Greenview Rd. Northbrook), as property owners, for a Zoning Code variation 23 to reduce the required corner side yard from 30 feet to 25.5 feet for the Property in the R-4 District 24 commonly known as 2271 Dehne Road to allow the construction of a new single family home on the 25 Property, subject to the following conditions: 26 27  That the addition be constructed in substantial compliance with the plans reviewed by the 28 Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23, 2014. 29  That the Petitioner must fully comply with the Village’s storm drainage requirements. 30 31 On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously. 32 33 5. Old Business 34 There was no old business. 35 36 6. New Business 37 There was no new business. 38 39 7. Adjournment 40 There being no further business, Member Geslicki moved, seconded by Member Lown to adjourn the 41 meeting at 10:00 pm. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 42 43 Respectfully submitted, 44 45 46 Julie Weldon 47 Recorder 5