Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/24/2005 P&Z minutes 49-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-49-04 Hearing Date: March 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7 N. Main Street PETITIONER: Teresa Licari 4 Red Ridge Circle Barrington, IL 60010-5326 LEGAL NOTICES MAILED: February 9, 2005 PIN #: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to consolidate (2) parcels and create a one- lot subdivision/one lot of record MEMBERS PRESENT: ActingChairJoseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Matt Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Clare Sloan, Neighborhood Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Teresa Licari Bryan Mraz Mark Watychowicz ActingChairJoseph Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Leo Floros moved to approve the minutes of the February 24, 2005 meeting, but corrected to reflect Ronald Roberts voting against the sign Variation, and seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved 3-0, with 2 abstentions by Marlys Haaland, new member, and Matt Sledz. Under Old Business, Mr. Donnelly asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the April 28, 2005 meeting. Matt Sledz moved to continue the case; seconded by Ronald Roberts, and it was approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelley introduced Case No. PZ-49-04, a request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision into one lot of record. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that discussion on the Petitioner’s project was continued from the February Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. As you recall, the Petitioner is proposing to consolidate two parcels, which were acquired through a county tax sale, to create a one-lot subdivision. The parcels would be consolidated through the proposed Licari’s Consolidation plat. The Village Attorney determined that the Subject Property was created without the benefit of a subdivision and Village review. In addition, he determined that the Village could not prevent the Petitioner from seeking approval of the proposed Licari’s Consolidation. However, future development of the site must comply with all Village Codes. It is important to note that the item being reviewed is the plat that consolidates the parcels and creates a one-lot subdivision. The redevelopment of the site is a separate issue. If the proposed development does not comply with Village regulations or requires Conditional Use approval, the P& Z, and most likely Village Board, would review the request and make a decision in response to the development. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-49-04 Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for approving a subdivision and said they relate to the physical development of a subdivision. The regulations provide requirements for the development of the block, and the development of the lot. Staff reviewed the proposed plat and found that it had been prepared in accordance with the Village Code. In response to the discussion held at the February meeting, the Petitioner submitted a plat of survey. However, Staff prepared an aerial photograph exhibit titled “Existing Conditions” to depict current conditions. In addition, the color-coded page from the Sidwell book identifies the adjacent properties and the Subject Property. This exhibit documents that the existing apartment buildings were built over the property lines. The ‘hooks’ indicate common ownership, and a dashed line indicates a parcel line. The Village’s Zoning Ordinance does not recognize a parcel line the same as a lot line and current code regulations would require the Petitioner to consolidate the parcels before the development could be approved. Also, the Staff exhibit titled “Address Verification” documents that the address assigned to the Subject Property is ‘7 N. Main Street’ although the Petitioner has referred to it as 7A N. Main Street. Ms. Connolly summarized the request: the Petitioner is seeking approval of the Plat of Consolidation only, however, during the original review of the request, the P&Z Commission raised questions regarding the 30’ easement that extends along the rear lot line of the subject property and the adjacent properties and how the easement would affect future development with respect to parking. Per the P&Z Commissioner’s request, the Village Attorney prepared a memo clarifying that the parking easement would probably survive upon approval of the Plat. In addition, he found that the title document submitted by the attorney for the adjacent property demonstrated that there was limited right to park in the easement, but that it would survive the tax division and the plat approval as well. The Village Attorney stated that whether the limitation on the parking rights are so restrictive as to prevent the development would depend on the nature of the development and the extent to which portions of the easement would be used for parking. He noted that is an issue to contend with when, if ever, a development plan was submitted. Therefore, Staff continues to recommend that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the plat for 7 N. Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04, because the plat meets Village Code requirements and future development of the site is a separate issue to be reviewed when plans are submitted for review. However, as stated in the Village Attorney’s memo, the plat should be approved with the statement that the approval is for consolidation purposes only and does not extend to any development approval of any kind and asks that the applicant acknowledge this for the record. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Mr. Donnelley asked about current and past zoning for the property. Ms. Connolly said it had been Residential and now was B5; Village records do not indicate that it was ever a Planned Unit Development. It was determined that current code regulations would prohibit this same subdividing/development situation. Teresa Licari, 4 Red Ridge Circle Drive, Barrington, IL, and her attorney, Bryan Mraz, 111 Irving Park Road, Roselle, IL, were sworn in to testify. Mr. Mraz said he has recently become involved in this case, has read the Village Attorney’s letter and concurs with his opinion. There is an easement agreement across the rear of all the properties for ingress and egress with a parking reservation that only runs to the subject property. Mr. Mraz said that is the opinion of the Village Attorney and he concurs with that opinion. What may actually have happened in practice and over time will need to be worked out amongst the other owners. Mr. Mraz agreed that the hearing’s purpose was to request a consolidation and the Petitioner should and would acknowledge that plat approval does not extend to development of any kind. Mr. Donnelley asked if she understood she could not block ingress/egress with parking; Ms. Licari said she did. Mark Watychowicz, 301 S. WaPella, an attorney for 5 N. Main Street, was sworn in. He said he wanted to remind the Commission that the Subdivision request is actually a request to build something at the location in the future. The site was designed for three buildings and another building will cause chaos – to pitch a tent there will cause a major problem. There are 36 existing units and 36 parking spaces and the present ordinance requires 2 lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-49-04 Joseph Donnelley, Acting Chairperson Page 3 spaces per unit. He said building a building there would cause an eyesore and prevent redevelopment of the undesirable shopping center across the street from it. Anyone coming into town sees this eyesore. All the overflow parking will fall into the downtown area, which is already overcrowded. He also questioned whether the Petitioner had the proper standing to bring this request before the Board. Mr. Watychowicz said he had just received a parking ticket last week and didn’t think the Petitioner had the right to come from out-of-town to cause these problems for him as a resident, taxpayer, father and downtown businessman. Mr. Watychowicz said his client’s needs are not being served because the property is being used for his tenants as parking spaces. His client purchased his building in 1977 as is, with no additional parking. His client had no notice of any tax sales. He said the Petitioner had time to study the property and realize what the problems were before getting involved with it. Mr. Watychowicz said his client would be willing to purchase the property from the Petitioner but not at the inflated price she wanted for it. He said his client had maintained the parking portion of the property for all those years without remuneration. Matt Sledz said he appreciates the comments about future development but hearing the opinion of the Village Attorney, realizes that the Petitioner is entitled by right to consolidate the lots. Mr. Roberts agreed. Mr. Floros said he feels approval of the consolidation would be construed as endorsement of future development of the site; he sees no benefit to the Village. Mr. Roberts said one possible benefit is that the neighbor might purchase the land and that would be beneficial to the Village. He stated that the Petitioner has acknowledged she as no approval from the Village to develop the property, which she must disclose to any buyer by law. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend approval of the Licari’s Consolidation plat for the property at 7 North Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04, with the statement that approval of the plat does not constitute approval for future development; Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, and Sledz NAYS: Floros Motion was approved 4-1. Ronald Roberts made motion to adjourn at 8:40 p.m., seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. __________________________________ Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-49-04 7 N. Main St. Licari Subdivision 3-24 mtg1.doc