City of Highland Park Zoning Board of Appeals met Sept. 1.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
I. CALL TO ORDER
At 7:30 PM Chair Cullather called the meeting to order and asked Planner Fawell to call the roll.
Planner Fawell called the roll:
Members Present: Yablon, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Members Absent: Beck, Zaransky, Putzel
Planner Fawell took the roll and declared a quorum present.
Staff Present: Fawell
Student Rep.: None
Council Liaison: Tapia
Corporate Counsel: None
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 4, 2022
Member Bay stated that he watched the meeting video of the August 4, 2022 ZBA meeting.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the August 4, 2022 meeting. Member Yablon so motioned, seconded by Member Hendrick.
Planner Fawell called the roll:
Ayes: Yablon, Hendrick, Bay, Cullather
Nays: None
Motion passed 4-0.
III. PUBLICATION DATE FOR NEW BUSINESS: 8-17-22
IV. BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC: None
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. #2022-VAR-024
Property: 1207 Glencoe Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035
Zoning District: R6
Appellant: Andrew Venamore, Mach 1
Address: 602 Academy Dr., Northbrook, IL 60062
The petitioner, Andrew Venamore, Mach 1, 602 Academy Dr., Northbrook, IL 60062, on behalf of property owners, M. Alexander & D. Papp of 1207 Glencoe Rd., Highland Park, IL 60035, requests by authority of Section 150.1204(A)(1), of the Highland Park Zoning Code, a variation of provisions of Section 150.703, as required under the R6 zoning district, to (i) encroach 6’ within the required 25’ front yard measured from the south property line in order to construct a detached garage.
Planner Fawell made a presentation for the above item including site location, project background, aerial view, survey, site plan (proposed), elevations, other comments and requested relief.
Chair Cullather – NO AUDIO
Planner Fawell – NO AUDIO
Member Bay – NO AUDIO
Member Fawell – NO AUDIO
Mr. Andrew Venamore, 602 Academy Dr., Northbrook, IL 60062, stated the project is the construction of a detached garage. There is no presently no garage and they are seeking to provide a basic 20’ x 20’ two-car garage. He was not sure when the previous owners converted the attached garage to living space. The home is small and it made sense at that time. There is very limited space for a detached garage – NO AUDIO 08:10 – 08:53. The north wall will need to be fire rated and they felt narrowing too much further will start crowding out the front of the house and make it more difficult to access the garage. The idea is to drive up the driveway and turn 90º into the garage. (unintelligible) see how challenging it is to try and locate anything of a practical size on the property. There is no room in front of the house and it would detract from the architecture of the house. They are left with the rear yard even though the zoning ordinance classifies it as a side yard. The only alternate might be to attach the garage. If it were attached you would end up with a significantly larger amount of impervious surface because the driveway would need to curve around for access. It would eliminate the outdoor congregational space. The patio is accessed by the door off the kitchen. If the garage was located where the 28.14’ dimension is it would detract from the overall architectural nature of the house and limit the back yard space. Keeping the garage at 20’ x 20’ and locating it 5’ from the house and encroaching minimally on Grey Ave. was the most appropriate use for the space. The hardship is tied to the irregular nature of lot with the two front yards and two side yards. He looked to turn the garage and try and get it out of the front yard, but it encroached under the trees in the back yard, most like causing them to be lost. There is some merit with the right angle nature of the garage vs. where the house is. If he had to cant the garage on the lot it would mess up the layout. He felt this was the most appropriate location for the garage.
Member Yablon asked if it was possible to scooch the garage a little back.
Mr. Venamore stated they tried to keep the garage away from the trees on the property which delineates the difference between the properties. If they did that they would still encroach by a lesser amount, but would still encroach. Over the next couple of years the trees would likely die.
Member Bay asked what if they moved it in the opposite direction and attached it to the structure and have the front of the garage without having to turn into it. They could push it back a little and attached it to the house.
Mr. Venamore stated there would be a substantial encroachment and if they moved it 5’ and even though cost is not driver, it is important to consider the difference. As soon as they attached the garage it is on a floating slab 12” below grade. He would have to make sure they did not move independently from each other and the cost would be driven up.
Member Bay stated they would be using more impervious surface to locate it. Mr. Venamore stated it is huge cost driver.
Member Bay the cost would not be offset by the benefit of having it attached to the house.
Mr. Venamore stated most people would prefer an attached garage. It would be more expensive to attach it. It would not be offset by the expense associated with it.
Planner Fawell stated if the garage was attached the encroachment would be larger and the established building setback would kick in.
Member Bay stated it would open up a new can of worms.
Chair Cullather asked it they had an overhead that showed how it lines up to the house on Gray Ave.
Planner Fawell stated she would try to pull up the view.
Member Hendrick asked if they had talked with the neighbors.
Mr. Venamore stated they had discussed it the neighbor.
Mr. David Papp, 1207 Glencoe Ave., Highland Park, IL, stated their neighbor to the east informed them and they are both on board. She had a stroke and they were not at the block party. He talked with her husband as well as the residents at 660 and they are on board.
Planner Fawell stated the GIS is not loading and showed a street view.
Member Hendrick asked where the garage would be.
Mr. Venamore mentioned the tree and it would be 5’-6’ away.
Member Bay stated the trees will obscure the neighbors’ view of the garage. Chair Cullather asked if it would extend beyond the front of the houses.
Mr. Venamore stated the garage would not be in front of the of single-story porch.
Chair Cullather stated the one beyond it extends out and comes even closer further out on the street. It is not like there is a line along the street.
Mr. Venamore stated it the best they can come up with under the circumstances.
Member Hendrick stated he was in support of the application. 20’ x 20’ is reasonable. He mentioned reasonable return and they did a great job explaining what the thought process was as to where they are locating it. Even though they could put it next to the house, it does not necessarily reasonable to do so. The images and handout were very helpful.
Member Yablon agreed with Member Hendrick and appreciated they were watching out for the trees.
Member Bay agreed and thought it was well thought out as to the options and the best place to put it. He thought the standards had been met and would support the application.
Chair Cullather agreed and thanked staff and Mr. Venamore for their presentations. It was helpful to ask questions and receive solid answers. He thought the standards had been met.
Chair Cullather entertained a motion to approve. Member Hendrick motioned to adopt the order as presented. Member Bay seconded.
Planner Fawell called the roll:
Ayes: Yablon, Hendrik, Bay, Cullather
Nay: None
Motion passed 4-0.
VI. STAFF REPORT: None
VII. MISCELLANEOUS:
Adoption of the Zoning Board of Appeals Schedule of Meetings Resolution for the 2023 calendar year.
Planner Fawell stated they may to tweak the schedule dates and asked what the Board thought.
Chair Cullather stated he as fine with the dates. He was concerned about dates where both school districts were closed and the holidays and they could shift the dates rather than cancelling them.
Member Bay asked about the dates for Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah.
Planner Fawell stated it would have to be revised because December 7th is the first night before Hanukkah.
Member Bay stated Hanukkah is more of a festive holiday.
Member Yablon stated that was an accurate description.
Member Bay stated Passover would be more of a concern.
Planner Fawell stated Passover is April 6th.
Member Yablon stated December 21st is near Christmas for vacations.
Member Hendrick July 6th would be interesting to see if they had a quorum.
Chair Cullather stated they could continue to the next meeting so the members not present tonight had time to review.
Chair Cullather motioned to continue. Member Hendrick so motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
On a voice vote, the motion passed unanimously.
Planner Fawell stated the next meeting is September 15th.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
Chair Cullather motioned to adjourn. Member Hendrick no motioned, seconded by Member Bay.
On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
The Zoning Board of Appeals adjourned at 8:01 PM.
http://highlandparkil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=12&ID=2748&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up