Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/26/2005 P&Z minutes 17-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-17-05 Hearing Date: May 26, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 548 Ida Court PETITIONER/OWNER: Vincent & Judy Altobelli PUBLICATION DATE: May 11,2005 PIN#: 08-14-404-007 -0000 ZONING: R3 Low-Density (3-Flat Multi-Family Dwelling) LOT SIZE: 0.17 acres (7,720 square feet) REQUESTS: Variations for: 1) Location of Detached Garage, 2) Lot Coverage, and 3) Driveway Width MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Altobelli, Property Owner Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Younquist moved to approve the minutes of the March 10,2005 Workshop Meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with an abstention by Leo Floros. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-17-05, 548 Ida Court, a request to re-build a garage, which requires Variations for the location of the garage, the existing driveway width, and amount of existing lot coverage. She said this case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said the Subject Property is located north of Dempster Street, between Linneman Road and Elmhurst Road, and contains a multi- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R3 Low Density Residence and is bordered by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the north and R3 to the east, south, and west. The Subject Property currently has a detached garage that encroaches into the required rear and side yard setbacks. The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage because it was damaged in a fire. The Petitioner's insurance company assessed the garage to be a 'total loss' and authorized payment Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 2 for a new garage. The Petitioner would like to build the new garage using the existing concrete slab, which is located 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards respectively. However, the location of the existing garage does not meet current zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly explained that the property was developed under Cook County regulations and later annexed into Mount Prospect. Since the entire garage would be demolished, the structure no longer retains its legal nonconforming status and it must be rebuilt according to current zoning regulations, which requires 5' rear and side yards. The insurance company will not pay for a new garage floor; therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation for the proposed location because they want to rebuild the garage using the existing concrete slab. As part of the Staff review, Staff found that the site currently exceeds the 50% lot coverage limitation and the driveway exceeds the maximum width listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Although the size and design of the proposed garage would be the same as the existing 482 sq. ft. garage, the site would have 55% lot coverage. The Zoning Ordinance requires the site to meet current zoning regulations for the location of the garage as well as comply with lot coverage. The site does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because: 1) the 3-flat building encroaches into the required side yard, 2) the site exceeds the 50% lot coverage limitation, 3) the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side and rear yard setbacks, and 4) the driveway width exceeds 26' which is the maximum permitted width. However, the 3-flat building and driveway are legal nonconforming structures and are allowed to remain 'as is' since the Petitioner is not modifying them. Since the Petitioner would demolish the garage and construct a new garage, Village Code requires the project comply with current code requirements for setbacks and the site cannot exceed lot coverage limitations. The table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to current Zoning requirements. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to build the same size garage in the same location as the existing garage. However, the insurance company will not cover the cost of a new garage floor. While Staff can understand the reasoning for the Petitioner's request to rebuild the garage in its current location, the site could be modified to comply with current code requirements. She said that the Building Division confirmed that the garage floor could be modified so it complies with Village Code requirements by saw cutting the portion of the slab that encroaches into the required setbacks. Additional concrete could be added so the footprint of the garage is maintained. In addition, the Petitioner could narrow the driveway so its width complies with zoning regulations and the site would then comply with the 50% lot coverage limitation. Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, the Variations are needed to rebuild a garage damaged in a fire. The site was originally developed under Cook County regulations and the site does not comply with current Village Codes. However, the requested Variations are based on convenience as opposed to a hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the requested Variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a detached garage to be built 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 3 and allow a 31' wide driveway and 55% lot coverage to be maintained at 548 Ida Court, Case No. PZ-17-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this case because the rear setback is more than 25% of the code requirements. Richard Rogers asked what percentage of the garage must be destroyed before the garage is considered a total loss. Ms. Connolly replied that the insurance company deemed it a total loss, but clarified that the Village Code states that less than 50% must be in need of rebuilding for the structure to retain it's legal nonconforming status. Ms. Connolly said that, although from the pictures the garage appears to have less than 50% needing to be rebuilt, the Petitioner looked into the viability of rebuilding the original structure. Joseph Donnelly clarified that only the garage setbacks are under review, not the non-conforming status of the driveway. Ms. Connolly replied that as a result of the garage request, the Village Code requires a new structure to comply with lot coverage limitations as well as the setbacks. She noted that a variation would run with the land. There was discussion regarding on-site parking for tenants. P&Z members commented that the 'extra' driveway width was necessary because Ida Court has parking restrictions and tenants needed to park on-site. It was determined the Village Code would require seven parking spaces for the development if it were built today. Chairman Juracek swore in the Petitioner, Judy Altobelli, owner of 548 Ida Court. Judy Altobelli explained there had been a fire and that the whole front and one whole side of the garage was damaged. She said that the rafters are charred, one wall has a broken window, but the back wall is stable. Her garage contractor could rebuild at the same cost as a new garage as there is more work involved. She said she wasn't aware that the garage did not meet current code requirements and that it was a non-conforming structure. She asked about the parking requirements. Chairperson Juracek replied that the P&Z Commission was considering if the property could provide 7 parking spaces on-site and still comply with setback requirements, which could be a rationale for approving the Variations. Ms. Altobelli said a new garage would be a better situation, and that she does not want to repair the garage for the same cost. She said that she already has the insurance check and would like to rebuild. She talked to two garage companies, who said the estimate to replace the cement floor was $7-9,000. Mr. Rogers noted that her alternatives seem to be a repair job, or moving the garage for a rebuild, due to the pre-existing conditions. He said if the request is denied, she will most likely repair the existing garage and the non-conforming conditions remain. However, the structure will not be as uniform as a new construction garage. He noted that if a Variation is approved, a 3-car garage could not be built due to lot coverage limitations. He said that lot coverage could change if the driveway was narrowed, but the 5 cars owned by the tenants are parked on the sides of the driveway. Deputy Director Ellen Divita asked the Petitioner to clarify who parks in the garage if the tenants are all on the drive. Ms. Altobelli said she had been renting the garage to a landscaper who lives in the neighborhood and keeps his trucks in a garage. Ms. Juracek added that Lois McMichael, 547 Ida Court called the Community Development Department to voice support for the project. Ms. Divita noted that the project would qualify for a Minor Variation, except for the rear setback. She recited the Village Code regarding Minor Variations and stated that a Minor Variation could Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 4 be allowed except for 7 inches in the rear yard setback. Therefore, the final decision is based on piecemealing and rebuilding vs. construction of a new garage. She said that other components from Village Code requirements are applicable to the situation: 1) the situation was in effect when the property was annexed; 2) The owner has not changed the property in some way so as to create the nonconformity; 3) The requested relief is not out of character with the neighborhood. The Commission asked whether the garage could be rebuilt 7 inches shorter. There was discussion that the proposed 21-foot depth could not be reduced any further without limiting the ability to park vehicles in the garage. Ms. Juracek stated that the Subject Property mirrors other conditions on the block, the Subject Property backs up to a park, Staff could not confirm there were drainage issues, the request is the result of pre-existing from the County, and the Petitioner did not create the situation. The Commission also confirmed that the request is only to rebuild the garage, and that other property improvements would still be subject to correcting applicable non-conforming code issues. Ms. Juracek asked for further discussion; as there was none, she closed the Public Hearing. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend approval for Variations to permit a detached garage specific to the current footprint to be built, 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards, and allow a 31' wide driveway and 55% lot coverage to be maintained at 548 Ida Court, Case No. PZ-17- 05, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, and Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 6 - 1. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9: 12pm; Joseph Donnelley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner ;,;! '