City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals Met July 23.
Here is the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:33 PM Chair Chaplik called the meeting to order and asked Planner Burhop to call the roll.
Members Present: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Members Absent: None
Planner Burhop took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Burhop, Later
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 9, 2020
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the July 9, 2020 meeting.
Member Putzel so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 7-8-20
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. #20-08-VAR-012
Property: 963 Princeton, Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Andrew Venamore, Mach 1 (Property owner Ryung Suh)
Address: 963 Princeton, Highland Park, IL 60035
Planner Burhop made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, existing survey, proposed site plan, elevation plans, site photos, video clips, other comments and recommendation.
Member Hendrick asked if the relief extended down to the driveway or is it limited to the corner.
Planner Burhop stated it is limited to the corner. The draft approval order is premised on this site plan and is limited to 12.75 s.f. of area.
Planner Burhop stated he received confirmation the proposed garage will be required to tie into the storm sewer.
Chair Chaplik asked if it is currently tied into the storm sewer. Planner Burhop stated he did not think the current one is.
Vice Chair Cullather asked how close does the proposed garage get to the rear line and how close is it allowed.
Planner Burhop stated the applicant indicates the closest point 8’. The lot angles off and the distance probably opens a little. At a minimum it will be an 8’ setback.
Vice Chair Cullather asked what was the required setback. Planner Burhop stated 3’.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if they could push this farther back into the yard and not request a variance.
Planner Burhop stated they could push it back as long as they do not breach the 30% coverage limit. It is a 440 s.f. garage and they can only have 380 s.f. within the required rear yard. If they pushed it all the way back they would be before the Board for a coverage request.
Vice Chair Cullather asked what it is that establishes the rear yard line and what determines how far back the side yard goes.
Planner Burhop stated the two yards are exclusive. You start with the front yard first and the rear is opposite and the side yards are those in between.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if it usably a back yard it is defined as a side yard.
Planner Burhop stated if you have a property deep enough the required rear yard actually maxes out. It is a limited portion of the back yard. The usable functional back yard will have side yards running for a good portion of it. That would be the case in any district.
Member Zaransky asked if they need relief is because the rear yard starts there.
Planner Burhop stated within required rear yard the zoning code lets owners build property within the back 25’ you have to 3’ from a property line and cannot have more than 30% coverage. The rear yard rules only apply to the rear yard. You cannot build a garage in a side yard.
Member Bay stated it appears the proposed garage is set where the front would line up with the front of the garage next door.
Planner Burhop stated that is according to the survey the applicant submitted.
Member Bay stated if they pushed back a few feet you would be able to see the other garage from their back yard and it would not line up with the garage next door.
Member Hendrick asked if there was a zoning reason why the garage could not be moved to the side to the left 3’.
Planner Burhop stated if they moved the proposed garage further to the left 3.7’ it would comply with the code and they could be getting their building permit now.
Mr. Andrew Venamore, Mach 1, stated this is for a replacement 20’ x 22’ detached garage, current garage is decrepit and in need of replacement, two-garage in the most feasible location, new garage will be pushed further into the rear of the lot, proposed garage will adhere to the rear yard setback, proposing 3’ setback on east side yard, 2” further into yard, rear yard setback will be 8’, variation is to reduce the required side yard from 6.7’ down to 3’, it is the most preferable location, decided to reduce amount of impervious surface on lot, an amount of water exists on the Suh property, and the neighbors to the north and west, natural grade runs northwest from the existing garage, owners has come to the site to talk about the requirements, a civil engineering plan will be developed, which will require a connection to the storm sewer, currently there is no connection, connection will tie in downspouts directly from the garage to the sewer, runoff will go into the storm sewer, have yet to engage a civil engineer, focusing on tying downspouts in and providing a structure in rear yard that will allow the runoff from the driveway and existing driveway to be directed to structure to allow runoff to be picked up, 12” dia. catch basin in rear yard to pickup runoff, downspouts to go directly to storm sewer, runoff from house, run connection down west side, house picked up, will grab as much of the impervious surface as possible, homeowner is aware of the challenges as it relates to drainage, decided not to push garage back because of increase in impervious surface, plan will be designed with catch basin, owners are interested in limiting impervious surface, if they put garage in rear they are limited to 375 s.f., requirement for 6.7’ setback is where request sits, it would hamper the way the back yard lays out and would put the garage more behind the house which would create the challenge of accessing the garage door, reason for 3’ request is to try and work within the parameters, and allow ease of access, hardship is tied to 6.7’ setback, owner felt it was better to limit the amount of impervious surface and limit amount of coverage in an attempt to lessen the runoff going to the neighbor to the north.
Mr. Ryung Suh, Owner, stated the neighbor to the east fine with setback of 3’.
Mr. Venamore stated the neighbor is happy with the application and had no objections. They will work with the neighbor to the north and try to design something with the least impact on the neighbor.
Chair Chaplik stated the lot drops down at the rear. He asked if they pushed back the garage would they get closer to where the lot drops and the water accumulates.
Mr. Venamore stated the grade to the left grade drops to the northwest. To the rear property line it is 5”-6”. There is a drop in that location front to back and it will increase the velocity of the water. The best location for the catch basin is on the low spot towards the back. Pushing the garage further back will move those challenges further to the north. The owner’s idea was to keep it as far as practicable away from the rear yard.
Mr. Jim Collopy, 1741 Clifton, Highland Park, IL, Neighbor, stated he had two concerns and one is his property is just north and when you push a garage back 3’ it is into his side yard, does not have back yard to buffer it and it winds up in front of their dining window, appreciated the effort, if they lock it into 8’ he would be OK with that, does not come back farther. His second concern is the water. He has done grading so it does not run into his basement. He mentioned the catch basin in the middle of the property and he was not clear if that is tied into the storm sewer or a drain. If it is into the storm sewer he is good with it. He mentioned the downspout from Mr. Suh’s house and the downspout from the neighbor’s house which is pitched to the driveway. All the water tries to come to his property. They regraded everything so it would run to the front. There is a lot of water and they need to be careful because he does not want to go through a situation where he is up every night there is a storm. They fixed that about five years ago and he wants to make sure the downspout gets tied into the sewer. He wanted to confirm the downspout on the east side of Mr. Suh’s house gets tied into the storm sewer. He asked if the downspouts in the west side of the house are also tied into the sewer.
Mr. Venamore stated the catch basin will be designed by the civil engineer and will be connected to the storm sewer. There will be a line running from the two downspouts on the back of the garage and they will be tied into the sewer. There will be a catch basin and it will be tied into the line and the water from the driveway will go to the sewer directly. As the sewer runs along the west side of the property the downspouts will be picked up. The east side will not be connected.
Mr. Collopy asked if there is a sump pump on the west side and if it could be tied in.
Mr. Suh stated the pump is on the west side and it would be up to the planners to see if they can tie it in.
Mr. Venamore stated they will investigate this and see if it is possible.
Ms. Catherine Manpearl 973 Princeton, Highland Park, IL, stated her questions had been answered.
Vice Chair Cullather stated the garage to the east is a detached two-car and was trying to get a sense of the neighborhood and whether other houses have two-car garages.
Mr. Collopy stated the house at 957 is a two-car, 949 is a one-car, 973 is a one-car, 977 is a one-car and 999 is a two-car.
Member Zaransky stated he would support the application and they worked through the main issues and the drainage seemed to the main objection. The storm sewer will improve the drainage.
Member Hendrick stated he would approve the application and Mr. Venamore did a great job in his presentation.
Member Bay agreed and thought it met the standards and is in the right position.
Member Putzel agreed and although the neighborhood may have some one-car garages, a two-car garage is sort of standard in Highland Park. She thought a one-car garage could be a hardship. She would approve the application.
Member Henry agreed and thought the main objection was the drainage and this will be improved once connected to the sewer. He thought it met the standards and would approve the application.
Vice Chair Cullather agreed and thought the standards had been met as far as the hardship. They have looked at multiple options and if they moved the garage to a different location they might be before the Board anyway seeking a different variation. 12 s.f. is minimal and he would approve the variation.
Chair Chaplik agreed and appreciated the efforts of the neighbors to work together and would support the application.
Planner Burhop stated they had received no emails regarding the item.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion. Member Henry motioned to direct staff to prepare findings of fact and order approving the application as submitted. Member Putzel seconded.
Planner Burhop stated this is a motion to direct staff to prepare findings of fact approving the application as submitted.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
Chair Chaplik entertained a motion with respect to the order. Vice Chair Cullather motioned to adopt the order as drafted, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Burhop stated it was motion to adopt the order as drafted for approval.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Zaransky, Hendrick, Bay, Putzel, Henry, Cullather, Chaplik
Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
VII. STAFF REPORT:
1. Discussion of Alternate Standards of Approval for Specified Zoning Variations
Planner Burhop made a presentation including zoning code changes - introduction, alternate standards and authorized variations, rationale for alternate standards, policy questions, proposed changes, zoning standards – mandatory standards – all must be met.
Vice Chair Cullather stated there were single-family and multi-family and does the code mention two-family homes.
Planner Burhop stated it was a specified land use permitted.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if a duplex was different from a multi-family. Planner Burhop stated they are separate.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if this applied across districts.
Planner Burhop stated yes it is related to use.
Member Bay stated regarding mandatory standard #6 and thought it was terrible language and open to a tremendous amount of interpretation. He asked about the minimum necessary and what it meant. There was no context for it and it would be a nightmare. He had a serious issue with that particular standard.
Member Henry agreed with Member Bay and each one of the Board has a different view of what is reasonable and what is a minimum necessary. He did not think swimming pools were necessary. He thought this proposed mandatory standard creates a situation that is more difficult than now. This is subject to interpretation and is a bad path to go down.
Chair Chaplik stated he had a similar reaction to #5 - no reasonable alternates to the proposed variation. One of the cases they dealt with recently was the home office. Is there no reasonable alternate to adding the home office. The house is usable and the reasonable alternate is do not do it. He was not sure how to deal with #5 or #6 and they were very confusing. It almost makes their job tougher. He agreed with the basic premise of giving them a way to create an easier path for minimal requests. Some of the mandatory are more confusing.
Member Hendrick stated what Member Henry said is spot on and #5 and #6 are problematic for the reasons stated. He stated he might have enforced these differently if used #5 or #6. He would have had a tough time today with the garage issue if he applied #5 and #6.
Member Henry stated his experience on the Board has been somehow they find a way if the Board finds a way to make the right decisions. What they are trying to do is address those situations not covered by the zoning code like through lots and corner lots. The applicant has the burden of proving it satisfies the standards and that is why they go first. Their decisions are appealable to the Circuit Court and that has happened once or twice during his tenure. This makes it more discretionary and is a slippery slope to go down.
Planner Burhop continued his presentation including selective standards.
Member Bay stated selective findings must meet at least two of five standards which means they can ignore three of them totally if they meet two. He had a hard time looking at some of these selective standards and saying as long as they meet two out of five they can forget about whether it is due to any unusual circumstances. They need to be more selective. His pet peeve is looking for context as to what a reasonable return applies to. If they are looking at it that they are going to spend money to improve the property and in the absence of a variance are they going to get a reasonable return. It is more confusing with the added verbiage.
Chair Chaplik mentioned selective standard #2 about enjoying a special privilege or additional right, and was not sure what it means in the context of a standalone standard. Member Hendrick agreed with Member Bay and was curious if the inference is that every single board member can pick two on the list. He thought it was too selective. He expected to see something about historical preservation and it had come up a couple of times in his tenure on the Board. It seemed like it was a big deal but this is not captured in the updates and he would recommend adding this.
Chair Chaplik stated members do not have to all agree on which if the selective standards are met. They have standards on heritage trees.
Member Hendrick stated if the list is a point of policy then they should keep the ones they need.
Member Henry stated because they have mandatory standards, and they have to make findings of fact supporting their decision. Generally they do not go through the standards one by one. They would have to agree on the optional standards for it to withstand legal scrutiny. The concept that they could each pick optional standards and if the variation passes, he did not think it could withstand the scrutiny.
Chair Chaplik asked if Counsel had reviewed this. They may have experience with other communities have done this type of thing.
Member Bay stated it has the potential to make a messy factual record if anything is appealed.
Planner Burhop stated Counsel had not vetted this yet and would do so before it became code. This is still preliminary. Regarding selective findings, they have not had a heritage tree in a while and he recalled when a motion was made to approve a heritage tree removal the person making the motion stated it was selective findings that they thought were met and then the vote it taken. The findings come from three sources – other cities, and are not totally new inventions. Or they come from what staff did in 2010 and Council denied by 4-3. Or they come from a combination of the two.
Vice Chair Cullather stated he liked the effort. For the first selective standard 99% of the cases they have had have been hardships not created by homeowner. One was a builder who was subdividing lots. If they are asking for two of five the first one is a giveaway. Some of the others are easy for the petitioner to meet and some of the difficult ones they can adequately avoid. He liked the idea of attempting to streamline but the slippery slope will be really slippery and you can always make an argument.
Chair Chaplik mentioned standard #4, proposed selective finding #1 – hardship not created by the person and thought it should be a mandatory finding. If someone is creating the hardship he was not sure there should ever be expedited relief. If Council had something in mind he would like to hear it.
Member Bay thought this was an excellent point and thought it should be a mandatory finding. How could they allow someone to create a hardship and then come in complain about it. The questions is are they now down to two of four or one of four.
Member Hendrick thought some of these should be mandatory. He did not know if the code emphasizes the things that were bolded in the printouts. There were a couple of things in his printout that seemed like seemed like points of emphasis. At the end of the second one it says “that will alleviate some demonstrable and unusual hardship which is generally not applicable to other properties within the zoning district” was bolded. The alleged hardship has not been created by the person is bolded. He thought these were core principles they operate under. He thought they should be incorporated more into mandatory and he was for shrinking the list of selective standards.
Member Henry stated three out of the five proposed selective findings have the term hardship in them. That is one of the most difficult concepts they deal with. It is in #1, #3, and #4. They deal with hardship which is one of the most difficult concepts the Board deals with. He was not sure if this helps them along. If applicants have a problem with zoning they can take it Council. Making changes to it is difficult and he did not think this does it. He recognized the effort staff had expended on this. It is not an easy task under the best of circumstances. He would be interested in hearing what Corporate Counsel has to say and how this might work to see if then can make this a better system for the City and the constituency.
Member Hendrick stated maybe an alternate way to structure the code could be to have an exception or fall back list they could use. Instead of getting into dividing up the standards they could tack something on the end that would allow a weighing of interests.
Member Bay stated he was surprised that under the selective standards there was not a general catchall that would address a home office. He asked if they were allowed to consider temporary hardships or other extenuating circumstances that might be more transient.
Chair Chaplik stated on the bottom of page 1 there is a footnote “staff presented changes to the ZBA’s authority related to certain variation requests.” He was not sure what this meant and the only thing that popped up was that he knew some municipalities have a deminimus zoning variance requests that can be handled by staff. If it is denied they can take it to the Board.
Planner Burhop stated the footnote is related to the Compere referrals as one of the things discussed with Council. The City he worked for before in Minnesota allowed more by right development and they had administrative approvals. This is being looked at the behest of Council and he did not think the direction was for administrative approvals. There is more to it than just tonight and they are also looking at certain types of structures that should maybe be allowed.
Planner Burhop continued with his presentation with a list of authorized variations – SBL & front yard, front yard and EBS, yard, rear yard and FAR.
Member Henry stated this came out three days ago and there is a lot of information to wrap their arms around. He thought it would be more helpful to get ideas and thoughts from members of the Board to mull this over.
Member Bay agreed and some of it is so specific. To talk about it in a vacuum is it hard to read it and to be able to sit down and digest it. They had a SBL issue two weeks ago relating to a swimming pool. He thought SBLs should be allowed more latitude.
Chair Chaplik stated he used to do subdivisions for developers and often a developer desired to establish a community of new homes that have a different kind of setback. In those situations someone may have bought a house because maybe the homes are located generously for the neighborhood. People had bought and paid for those setbacks. He was not sure when people know what they are buying they should treat them as something that could be easily weighed.
Member Bay asked if that would be covered by the harmonious and conforming standards. They are talking about asking for a variation after the building has been built.
Chair Chaplik stated they could and did not know if it called for expedited scrutiny. It was a tough call.
Vice Chair Cullather stated some of the SBL cases are the most difficult they have had.
Member Henry stated some these comments go to the essence of what they do as a board. People buy the property in the condition it is in subject to the restrictions it is subject to all or most of which are of record. They run with the land because that is how the developer developed the property as opposed to being part of the zoning scheme for the neighborhood. When you buy a property you buy it subject to restrictions, easements, etc. that run with it.
Chair Chaplik stated this is not something that should be rushed through and it should be given some thought. They could open up a can of worms that would backfire if not thought through and given consideration.
Planner Burhop mentioned the policy questions and asked it is appropriate for the zoning code to have a custom set of standards that are applicable for minor relief requests. He stated the Board wanted to see some changes and revisions to what was brought for the alternate standards and was the Board agreeable with the concept of moving forward with a custom set of standards for what might be considered minor relief requests.
Member Henry stated he would like to see the definition of minor. Vice Chair Cullather agreed.
Planner Burhop stated to the extent the Board interprets these things, he will see what he can bring back.
Member Hendrick stated he did not like it and thought having one set of standards and put into that set of standards something that is flexible in a deminimus situation. He thought there was a different way to accomplish this.
Chair Chaplik asked if the second half of the packet was staff’s attempt to take a shot at defining minor.
Planner Burhop stated yes, they were meant to be bounded.
Planner Later stated they did some in depth research on some of the standards and the relief given. The recommendations Karl had put in were based on factual information. They can provide the metrics to show where these came from.
Chair Chaplik stated he did not know if there was unanimity as to whether implementing this type of regime of a second set of standards is the optimal way to go. He was not sure this is the best way to do it. He was not sure they needed something like this.
Vice Chair Cullather stated if they went back five years and looked at where they denied a variation if the new standards were to apply would they end with a different resolution.
Chair Chaplik stated they were happy to help with this and he would like to hear from Mr. Passman.
Planner Burhop stated this will come back to the Board in two or four weeks. He will review the comments/revisions and bring it back. Ultimately is it has to go to Council and they will decide if they want this or something similar.
Vice Chair Cullather asked if it was appropriate for the PDC to have some input earlier in the process.
Planner Burhop stated they will have a shot at it. It will go to Council next and if they want it to move forward then the PDC is next for their input.
Planner Later stated Council wanted the ZBA to have first shot at getting something back them. This is something staff had put together and bantered about for a long time. They want to finish it off and are looking for the ZBA’s recommendation and it would go back to the Committee of the Whole.
Chair Chaplik stated it would also help to know what Council’s objective is. They have heard from Councilwoman Holleman talk about preserving older homes and a desire to make it possible to make it easier to modernize older homes. He was not sure this does either of those. If the desire is just to establish a different course for minor variations this is one way to do it, but he was sure they are helping modernization of older homes where things like a home office are not required. If they want to address these issues this does not even begin to touch either of those.
Planner Later stated Councilwoman Holleman did have some comments but this originated before that – as Planner Burhop stated this originally started as a 2010 project that was denied by the Council. It was a way to give the ZBA a little more flexibility in some of their approvals. Especially when it comes to situations like steep slope or if some property has a strange size. It is not geared toward historic preservation, but it could be applied to that. This is not something that came about recently and has been brewing for a while on how to make it a little less onerous on both the ZBA and a resident to come in for relief in a situation where they are hamstrung by circumstances. The first discretionary standard was that it was not caused by themselves. People do have two-car garages now and it is basically almost a given and some of these lots do not allow for that. This is a way to make it easier for the resident.
Chair Chaplik asked if this touched steep slope. These are some of the most sensitive cases they address.
Planner Later stated she may have misspoke.
Planner Burhop stated there was no change about steep slope.
Planner Burhop stated he had taken a lot of notes and will talk with staff. Staff will either take their comments to the Committee of the Whole or staff may make revisions and bring it back to the Board. If they did that it would probably be four weeks.
Vice Chair Cullather stated his final comment would be that for the front door portico not stretching the width of the house, the relief would be administrative discretion. He asked if there was a way to craft minor variations so the homeowner did not have to go through this process.
Planner Burhop stated there are multiple components to this project. The goal would be more property rights. This comes at the impetus of Council. There may be revisions to code that allow certain more by right encroachments.
Member Hendrick stated it would accomplish the goal of having more rights because you either say yes at the administrative level or there would be a clause to appeal it to the Board. He thought it was a good idea.
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Chaplik entertained a motioned to adjourn. Vice Chair Cullather so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
Planner Burhop called the roll:
Ayes: Bay, Chaplik, Cullather, Hendrick, Henry, Putzel, Zaransky Nays: None
The Chair declared the Motion passed 7-0.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 9:38 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2394&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up