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 November 25, 2013 6 7 8 1. Call to Order 9 Chairman Decker called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in the Board Room of Village Hall. Members 10 Craig, Geslicki, Lown , Sussholz, & Chairman Decker were present. Members Pick & Schofield were 11 absent. A quorum was present. 12 13 Village Staff present included J. Maisch, Zoning Administrator & Code Enforcement Official; & 14 D.Ford, Village Clerk. 15 16 3. Review of Minutes 17 Member Craig moved, seconded by Member Geslicki, to approve the minutes of the October 28, 2013, 18 meeting as presented. On a voice vote, the minutes carried unanimously. 19 20 2. General Public Comments 21 There were no comments from the public. 22 23 4. Public Hearing & Consideration of the following Petitions: 24 Chairman Decker announced that the docket would first be heard in the public hearing portion of the 25 meeting. ZBA deliberation and decision regarding the dockets would occur immediately following the 26 hearing, during the regular meeting. If members of the audience are not able to stay for the regular 27 meeting, they can contact the Zoning Administrator for results. Petitioners will be sworn in and should 28 address the Board. Neighbors within 250 ft. were notified of each petition. As required by state statute, 29 the hearing notice for all dockets was published November 7, 2013. 30 31 1. DOCKET NO. 13-Z-14 – Petition by Art Cottrell, FWC Architects, 303 Waukegan Avenue, 32 Highwood, IL 60040, on behalf of KZF Custom Homes, LLC, 1400 Techny Road, Northbrook, 33 IL, 60062 for a variation to reduce the required front yard setback (as determined by 34 averaging) from 36.28’ to 30’-2” on the R-4 Single Family Residential property commonly 35 known as 1367 Ridge Road (04-10-206-006). The purpose of the variation is to construct a 36 new single family residence. 37 38 Steve Friedman a representative of KZF was sworn in. Mr. Friedman was asked if notice to 39 the neighbors was provided and he replied – yes. 40 41 Mr. Friedman stated the standard setback is 30 feet. He described the Property and noted 42 the reasons they are requesting to reduce the front yard setback for the property from 36 43 feet due to the fact that that the dimensions slightly less than regular. He noted the rear 44 yard is 40 feet and that the lot also has some topography that is unusual. 45 Mr. Friedman stated there is drop in elevation on the east side of the lot by about 5 feet 46 which in the past has been dealt in the past with steps off of the garage. He stated KZF is 47 trying to construct a marketable home, far below FAR (about 700 feet less). The problem  Page 2 Minutes of the November 25, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 with the 40 foot rear and the 30 foot front is the rooms will be squeezed, which makes it 2 difficult to design a floor plan. That is the reason for the request. 3 4 Chairman Decker asked if anyone would like to speak. 5 6 Member Sussholz noted that at looking at the floor plan he notice the garage is sticking out, 7 and he questioned how far. In response, Mr. Friedman stated it looked like two feet. Could 8 look at his plan he stated. Member Sussholz then questioned why they were requesting a 9 front yard variance rather than a back yard. Mr. Friedman stated they would like to keep 10 the rear yard for marketability reasons. Member Sussholz later questioned the retaining 11 wall. He stated the sight drops from the left corner down towards the street. The 12 questioned if the window for the dining room is at the same elevation as the berm? It looks 13 low. Mr. Friedman explained that is where the garage is. The topography goes down east of 14 the house. Mr. Friedman explained the retaining wall begins where the garage doors are 15 and goes east from there. 16 17 Member Geslicki asked if the home was designed specifically for the lot and Mr. Friedman 18 stated yes. He then asked about the extension on the south side of lot. Mr. Friedman 19 stated it looks like it is 4 feet. Member Geslicki noted he liked how the builder had placed 20 the garage on the side street. Member Geslicki then voiced his concerns with the 21 topography, noting people will be seeing the side of the house. He stated the garage takes 22 away from it in his opinion. Mr. Friedman stated they tried to make that elevation as nice as 23 possible. Member Geslicki then questioned if there is a railing. In response Mr. Friedman 24 stated he was not sure, but the Village has codes we will have to follow. 25 26 Mr. Mitchel Stern, 1200 Caryn Terrace addressed the Board. He stated his property is 27 located directly south of the proposed site. He noted some safety issues he had in question 28 and noted he felt allowing the requested variance would create a precedent. Mr. Stern 29 noted there are children that playing nearby and he noted there are no sidewalks. 30 31 Chairman Decker stated noted he appreciated Mr. Stern’s safety concerns. He stated the 32 homes on this street are not aligned, but he did not believe there was not sufficient 33 testimony that would preclude the proposed variance. Chairman Decker stated the Board 34 needs to look at the physical property, not the people nearby. He stated he does not find 35 any overwhelming safety factors that would preclude. 36 37 Mr. Stern stated the people may change, but the issue could remain. He stated that if the 38 requested variance is not permitted then the home may be redesigned in a manner which 39 may address the safety concerns. 40 41 Chairman Decker noted that if the variance is rejected the applicant would have to come 42 back with an application that addressed the Board’s concerns. 43 44 Member Geslicki noted the applicant could come back with a new design which still may not 45 address Mr. Stern’s safety concerns. They could come back with exactly the same house, 46 slightly modified. 47  Page 3 Minutes of the November 25, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting 1 Member Geslicki moved, seconded by Member Lown to close he public hearing. The motion 2 passed by voice vote. 3 4 Chairman Decker stated that even though there may be concerns with design, it is not for 5 the Board to determine. 6 7 Member Craig moved and Member Geslicki seconded to accept variance. 8 9 5. Old Business 10 There was no old business. 11 12 6. New Business 13 Liaison Maisch asked the members to consider scheduling the meetings earlier in the evening in the 14 future. 15 16 11. Adjournment 17 There being no further business, Member Craig moved, seconded by Member Geslicki, to adjourn the 18 meeting at 8:02 p.m. On a voice vote, the motion unanimously carried. 19 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 22 23 Debbie Ford 24 Village Clerk 25 26 27 28