Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. Meeting Notices 07/21/2015MAYOR a� C� �'wr�,ya� t t ACTING VILLAGE Arlene A. Juracek U MANAGER David Strahl TRUSTEES Paul Wrn. Floefert VILLAGE CLERK John J. Matuszak M. Lisa Angell Steven Se Polit Richard F. Rogers Phone: 847/392-6000 Colleen E. Saccotelli Fax: 847/392-6022 Michael A. Zadel kv!Lja?;HNur+rtkNllkF;+? Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY JULY 23, 2015 HAS BEEN CANCELLED MAYOR T Nlo+ unt Prcr pvvt ACTING VILLAGE Arlene A. Juracek MANAGER David Strahl TRUSTEES Paul Wrn. EIoefert VILLAGE CLERK John J. Matuszak M. Lisa Angell Steven S. Polit Richard F. Rogers Phone: 847/392-6000 Colleen E. Saccotelli Fax: 847/392-6022 Michael A. Zadel at+ri�d� rar�s�4rtllrr�@,a°� Y,ir�•+ Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday July 23, 2015 7:30 p.m. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 2015 P&Z MEETING A. PZ -13-15 /1439 Fern Drive /Thomas Yarrish / Variation to Fence Height. B. PZ -14-15 / 801 W. Kensington Road / Township High School District 214 / Variation to Building Height. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ -16-15 / 300 E. Evergreen Avenue /Thomas Karlov / Variation from the requirement to pave an existing gravel driveway. This case is Village Board Final. (CONTINUED TO AUGUST 27, 2015) V. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056,847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, candrade(a),mountprospect.org Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 23, 2015 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -13-15 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: June 25, 2015 1439 Fern Drive Thomas Yarrish June 10, 2015 08-14-306-032-0000 Variation- Seven (7) foot tall fence Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone - Associate None Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development Thomas Yarrish & Daphne Macias Yarrish I Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 28th, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ -13-15 1439 Fern Drive. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to the fence height regulations for the property located at 1439 Fern Drive. Ms. Andrade stated the subject property is located on the east side of Fern Drive and contains a single- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Ms. Andrade stated that the rear yard includes an in ground pool and two fence lines. An existing wood fence that measures six (6) feet in height and a chain link fence that measures four (4) feet in height. The wood fence is setback approximately twenty-nine and half (29 1/2) inches away from the rear lot line. Ms. Andrade further explained the Petitioner would like to replace the existing fences with a seven foot (7) foot tall fence along the entire length of the rear lot line. The Zoning Ordinance limits the height of a fence between two residential lots to five (5) feet. Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair Ms. Andrade stated the proposed seven (7) foot tall fence would be a privacy PVC fence and would extend along the entire length of the rear lot line. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a Variation as the following: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade explained that the Petitioner indicated the Subject Property is unique due to the in -ground pool and the grade difference located in the rear of the yard. She further stated that the backyard is level, until the existing wood fence line where the grade drops one (1) foot at the property line. Ms. Andrade stated that the space in-between the existing wood and chain link fence lines is twenty-nine and a half (29/2) inches. Per the Petitioner, this area allows for property drainage but is difficult to maintain. She further stated that installing a five (5) foot tall fence at the rear lot line would cause a specific hardship due to the grade level, which would measure four (4) tall as measured at the swimming pool grade level. She explained that the Petitioner stated the rear lot line presented a liability should anyone attempt to enter the rear yard from the east and access the pool. Ms. Andrade explained Village Staff understands the Petitioner's reasons for installing a seven (7) foot tall fence; however, does not find the request satisfies the Variation standards. Ms. Andrade explained the grade level at the rear lot line is not unique to this property and is consistent with the adjacent lots. She further explained the rear yards slope down towards the rear lot lines. The Subject Property's rear yard was level when the pool was installed and consists of a railroad tie retaining wall. The existing wood fence projects six (6) feet above the retaining wall. Village building permit records indicate a permit was issued for the in -ground pool in 1976, but does not indicate any record of fence permits. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff finds the variation request to allow a seven (7) foot tall fence does not meet the variation standards as listed in the Zoning Code and that granting such request would not be in the best interest of the Village. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the findings in the staff report and deny the Variation request to allow a seven (7) foot tall fence along the rear lot line. She stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Commissioner Mizwicki asked how high the fences are along the side of the yard. Ms. Andrade stated that the existing chain link fences that run along the sides of the property are four (4) feet in height. Chairman Donnelly asked if the six (6) foot fence is a non -conforming structure. Ms. Andrade responded it was and stated that staff researched the building permit history and didn't find record of a fence permit for the existing wood fence. She further stated the Zoning Code was amended in Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 1993 to include the five (5) foot height restrictions and stated the fence was more than likely installed before the change. Commissioner Filippone asked if there was anything in the code against filling the land where the grading drops off to even out the space. Commissioner Youngquist responded that you can't modify the grade at a property line on any property because it can cause draining and flooding issues. Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner Thomas Yarrish from 1439 S. Fern Drive. Mr. Yarrish stated they are trying to replace two existing fences with a seven (7) foot fence. He stated the total height of both fences looking from the east is seven feet two inches (7'-.2"). He explained that there is about a twenty nine and half inch (29 ''/z") space between the two fences which makes it difficult to maintain. Mr. Yarrish further explained that they would like to remove the wood and chain link fences and replace it with a seven (7) foot PVC fence and redo the landscaping in that area to help with drainage. Commissioner Beattie asked about the height of the chain link fences that are along the sides of the Subject Property and asked about what the liability issue he is concerned about because there is currently a fence. Mr. Yarrish stated they are about four (4) feet however the land slopes down so it is lower in certain parts. He said there is a lack of a fence in between the two properties to the east of the Subject Property which makes it easier to get over the fence coming in from the east than it would be from entering on the northeast or the southeast. Commissioner Mizwicki asked the Petitioner if they would keep the two side chain link fences if they put up the PVC fencing. Mr. Yarrish stated he plans on keeping the two chain link fences in their current locations. Commissioner Mizwicki asked why the side fences are in good shape and the other chain link is not. Mr. Yarrish stated the chain link fence isn't in bad shape; however, the wooden fence is in poor condition. Commissioner Beattie asked why the seven (7) feet is being requested. Mr. Yarrish stated that he is just trying to match the existing height. Chairman Donnelly interjected that it is also graded one foot lower than the rest of the yard. Commissioner Younquist stated that he thinks that two four (4) foot fences wouldn't detour teenagers from jumping the fences and into the pool. He stated his concern about the seven (7) foot fence in a residential shouldn't be supported because the maximum height is five (5) feet per code. Mr. Yarrish asked why he wouldn't be in favor of a seven (7) foot fence or a six (6) foot fence. Commissioner Youngquist stated because it is not what the Village Code supports. Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 11 Chairman Donnelly stated if the Petitioner wants more privacy they could plant shrubbery to achieve the height and privacy. Mr. Yarrish asked if the wooden fence had to be removed regardless of the outcome of the variation request. Chairman Donnelly clarified with Staff. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner could repair the fence as long it is less than fifty percent (50%) of the overall structure replacement value. She clarified that if the entire fence were to be replaced it could not be reinstalled at the current height of seven (7) feet. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the fence were to be repaired would it have to consist of the same materials. Ms. Andrade stated that was correct. Chairman Donnelly stated that the Petitioner is allowed to retain the fence area because it is a non- conforming structure. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any further questions for the Petitioner. Hearing none he opened the case to the public for discussion hearing no discussion from the public he closed the public portion of the case and brought the case back to the board for voting. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald to approve the following motion: "To approve a variation request to allow a seven (7) foot tall fence along the rear lot line at the Subject Property located at 1439 Fern Drive." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: None NAYS: Otteman, Fitzgerald, Beattie, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly The vote was denied 7-0. This case was Planning and Zoning Commission final. After hearing one (1) additional case, Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter and the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm. Jenna _'Aloder Jenna Moder Administrative Assistant- Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission- June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -13-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -14-15 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: June 25, 2015 801 Kensington Road Township High School District 214 June 10, 2015 03-33-201-002-0000 Variation to allow a thirty-eight feet four and half inches (38'-4 1/2") building height Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone - Associate None Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development Township High School District 214 Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 28th, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0. After hearing one additional case, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ - 14 -15 801 W. Kensington Road. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -14-15 is Township High School District 214 who is seeking a variation to the building height regulations for the property located at 801 Kensington Road. She further explained the Subject Property is located on the south side of Kensington Road, east side of Dale Avenue, north side of Memory Lane and west side of Forest Avenue. The Subject Property measures over sixty (60) acres and includes Prospect High School and related improvements. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner is seeking to construct a natatorium building addition and is seeking variation approval to allow a thirty-eight feet four and a half inches (38'-4 ''/2") building height when a maximum of thirty-five feet (35') is permitted. Planning and Zoning Commission -June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -14-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair OJ Ms. Andrade stated that the site plan indicates the building addition would be constructed at the east side of the building, just west of the existing tennis courts. The addition would be setback over six hundred feet (600') from the north lot line (Kensington Road), over 360' from the east lot line (Forest Avenue), and over nine hundred feet (900') from the south lot line (Memory Lane). Ms. Andrade stated that the site plan also indicates improvements to the principal entrance and adjacent roundabout area, which would be modified to add ninety-six (96) parking spaces, including four (4) accessible spaces. The proposed improvements would increase the overall lot coverage to forty five percent (45%), which would not exceed the maximum seventy-five percent (75%) permitted for nonresidential uses in the RI Single -Family Residence District. Ms. Andrade stated that the elevation plans indicate the building materials will consist of face brick, manufactured, and spandrel panels. Ms. Andrade summarized the standards for a Variation as the following • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade stated that the proposed natatorium building addition was designed to match the level of the first floor of the existing high school in order to avoid creating accessibility issues for occupants. She further explained that the topography varies greatly east of the existing building, which is where the natatorium ceiling height necessary to accommodate instruction in diving and water polo for the physical education curriculum. Ms. Andrade further stated the building addition exceeds the thirty-five foot (35') maximum height permitted. The Petitioner indicates the Subject Property's land use is unique as it is the only four-year comprehensive public high school in the boundaries of the Village that would have a natatorium capable of offering a full range of instruction in swimming and water safety. Ms. Andrade stated the building addition will be complimentary to the rest of the Prospect High School campus and consistent in height to the northwest wing of the existing high school building. Ms. Andrade stated Village Staff reviewed the Petitioner's request and believes it meets the variation standards. The existing site conditions and land use are unique and not applicable to other property within the R1 zoning classification. She further stated constructing a building addition that meets the thirty-five foot (35') height would not provide the height necessary for the natatorium. Ms. Andrade further explained the natatorium building addition has been designed to match the existing building and would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. The addition will be setback more than 350' from the closest lot line; not impairing the light and air to adjacent property. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff finds that the variation request to allow a thirty-eight feet four and a half inches (38'-4 ''/2") building height meets the variation standards as listed in the Zoning Code and that Planning and Zoning Commission -June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -14-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 3 granting such request would be in the best interest of the Village. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To adopt staff findings in the staff report as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a variation to allow a thirty-eight foot and four and a half inches (38'-4 1/2") building height." Ms. Andrade stated the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any previous variations granted for height at the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade stated a height variation was granted for the satellite antenna. Commissioner Mizwikci asked for some clarification regarding the building height and setbacks. Ms. Andrade stated the permitted building height was thirty five feet (35') and the building would be setback three hundred and sixty-four feet (364') from the east property line. Chairman Donnelly swore in Kathy Johnson, Associated Superintendent of the finance and operations Township High School District 214 located at 2121 S. Goebert Drive Arlington Heights, Illinois. Ms. Johnson stated that Staff explained the project in great detail and that they are requesting a variation to put in a pool addition. Hearing no further questions from the board, Chairman Donnelly opened the discussion to the public. Chairman Donnelly swore in Roxanne Getz 524 S. Dale, Arlington Heights Illinois. She clarified she lived across from the football field. She mentioned the PA system was three (3) to four (4) times the decibel level than it was before and had made living in the area difficult. She asked why the pool is needed at the high school and the reasoning behind it. Commissioner Youngquist stated he didn't believe the Planning and Zoning had anything to do with the PA system. Chairman Donnelly confirmed the district didn't go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for the PA system. Ms. Johnson stated they conducted surveys throughout the district and found that a number of people wanted an additional another pool in the district. Ms. Johnson stated after evaluating the district the most logical place to build the pool was Prospect High School. Chairman Donnelly asked if the pool will be used by more than just Prospect High School. Ms. Johnson said that the pool would be used by all of District 214 high schools which include Buffalo Grove, Rolling Meadows, etc. She further explained that there is significantly more land at Prospect High School for the pool. Chairman Donnelly stated that it is difficult for a school that doesn't have the pool and that this will be a valuable addition to the high school. Commissioner Beattie asked if there were any plans have the pool opened to the public. Planning and Zoning Commission -June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -14-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 4 Ms. Johnson stated there weren't any plans for the public to use the pool. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any further questions for the Petitioner. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the Petitioner could look into the noise level of the P.A. system. Ms. Johnson stated she would look into it. Hearing no further questions for the Petitioner, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman to approve the following motion: "To adopt staff findings in the staff report as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve a variation to allow a thirty-eight foot and four and a half inches (38'-4 1/2") building height." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Otteman, Fitzgerald, Beattie, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The vote was approved 7-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter and the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm. Jenna Moder Jenna Moder Administrative Assistant- Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission -June 25, 2015 Meeting PZ -14-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chair