Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2005 P&Z minutes 41-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-41-05 Hearing Date: November 10,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS 1705 Verde Drive PETITIONERS: Mark and Marlene Neuhalfen PUBLICATION DATE: October 26, 2005 PIN #: 08-10-212-012-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Front Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary INTERESTED PARTIES: Mark N euhalfen Acting Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Youngquist moved to approve the minutes, of the October 27, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0, with Leo Floros abstaining. At 7:43 pm, Acting Chairman Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-41-05, a request for Variation for the front yard setback. He said that the case is Village Board final and the Commission will make a recommending vote tonight. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Verde Drive, south of Bonita Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 District. The Subject Property has an irregular shape as the front of the lot measures 62- feet wide, but the rear of the lot measures 80- feet wide. In addition, the lot depth varies, with the southern lot line measuring 23-feet longer than the northern lot line. The existing home is currently setback 27'8" from the front lot line, 12'11" and 10'6" from the interior lot lines, and approximately 86' from the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home include a second story addition and an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch would extend 5-feet from the existing house, resulting in a 22'8" setback. The proposed unenclosed porch request requires a Variation because the front yard will be less than 25- feet, which is the minimum yard required as a condition of the Conditional Use approval process. In addition, the Petitioner's plans call for the second story addition to continue the existing nonconforming front setback, 27'8". This aspect of the proj ect also requires a Variation because the Zoning Ordinance requires that new construction comply with the current front yard setback of 30-feet. ".,..",,',,,,,,.-.~,.t;_''':"'''''''''',", "."'e"';."."""""_,~.M",",,,,._"''',,,,",'~':;-''''''-T",,:'~'''''''''.=;---.;,'~,,""i"",:.;>y""~",..;;;:,.~,,.,....._~__......."__~~,,,___.,_~"...,,,...~_=,,'''^''':;;;:;;-''''~'-':''''''''''"~'"';'''''''~'''''''''''''''''f/'"""",,,~~= Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10,2005 PZ-41-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required front yard. However, the existing structure is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain in its current locations. The proposed unenclosed porch and second story addition require relief from the R1 District's bulk regulations for the front yard setback. The project would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. The table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. It shows that the Subject Property would continue to be well below the maximum lot coverage and that the only changes to the setbacks would occur in the front yard. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard for the house. However, the existing structure does not meet this requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct an unenclosed porch 5-feet further into the existing nonconforming setback. Also, the proposed second story addition would maintain the existing nonconforming setback, which is 27'8". Staff researched adjacent properties' setbacks and found that most houses in the area are setback at least 30' from the front property line. However, there was one exception and the house has a 24' front setback. Therefore, Staff found that the Petitioner's request would not be in keeping with the adjacent properties' setbacks. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing home to create additional living space. After meeting with Staff and discussing the project in great detail, the Petitioner explored different designs for the addition. However, they determined the porch was necessary to link the addition to the existing house and that modifying the second story addition, to meet the 30-foot setback requirement, would not be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Connolly said that although the lot has a somewhat odd shape, the front yard is not impacted by its irregularities. While the proposed design is aesthetically pleasing and Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire to improve their property, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The front yard is typical of most lots in the Village, and the lot shape irregularities effect the rear yard, not the front yard. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 22'8" front yard for an unenclosed porch and to allow a 27'8" setback for a second story addition, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1705 Verde Drive, Case No. PZ- 41-05." Ms. Connolly said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Acting Chairman Rogers requested clarification on his understating of the porch request: he said historically the Commission has allowed an unenclosed front porch up to the 25-foot setback line, and theoretically by building a 3-foot front porch versus the proposed 5-foot porch, it would be acceptable at the 25-foot setback line. Ms. Connolly confirmed his understanding was correct. Mark Neuhalfen of 1705 Verde Drive, Mt. Prospect, IL was sworn in. Mr. Neuhalfen said he is the Petitioner and property owner. He presented his case with a detailed presentation. Mr. Neuhalfen stated they have been residents of Mt. Prospect for 13 years and intend to stay in this home. They are not looking for a short-term resolution or any financial gain. He has a young, growing family and find the need to expand the home to accommodate their living space needs. They have considered other expansion options and the plans, as submitted, are the ideal choice for their situation. Aside from meeting the needs of his family, Mr. Neuhalfen indicated that this addition would add value to the home and the neighborhood. Mr. Neuhalfen stated he would be happy to answer questions from the Commission. ~""~~'_'_'''''-''''",''''''~''''",_;v"""="____,,,,,,,,,,,,.=..,,,,,,~";"_'~"-'''O~''"''=~~'''''''';"''''''''''''-;:~';,~,:;,t'=~,-''lW'''7=_~'~:",....~,=;o<.-",=.,...r.='t.-^"'''''''''''''''''''''''''_'''''''''-'''''t',,,~=,,,,,,,..,=,,,_,,,,,.,~~,",',-=>:,,~,,''''''..,'''O''''''"''''~_~__'_______~_''_M Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10, 2005 PZ-41-05 Page 3 Acting Chair Rogers requested information on the age of the home. It was determined that the home was constructed in 1955 and improvements were made to the home in 1989, which was verified per the plat of survey. Acting Chair Rogers stated that the Petitioner "inherited" the home at its current nonconforming setback and that is disadvantageous. He stated that the Commission could approve a porch up to the 25-foot setback, however he realizes the decreased size would make the porch less accessible. Mr. Neuhalfen acknowledged the 3-foot porch would be easier to get approval on, but again, the decreased size would make the porch virtually unusable space. Keith Youngquist asked the Petitioner for clarification on their decision to not proceed with a backyard addition. Mr. Neuhalfen said that they had considered all options, but loosing yard space was not conducive to the daily activities of the family. It is very important to the Neuhalfen Family to continue to have ample backyard space for their children. Mr. Youngquist acknowledged his understanding of what the Petitioner is requesting. Leo Floros asked Ms. Connolly to identify the front yard setbacks on other homes in the area. Ms. Connolly said Staff found one other home in the immediate area that had a sub-standard setback. She explained that the placement of the front stoop, which also encroaches in the front yard and creates to a 22-foot setback, is what may give the impression of a shallow front yard. Ms. Connolly said the stoop is a permitted encroachment on the property and that design is a common design for other homes in the neighborhood. Joseph Donnelly added that the home is located on the curve of Verde Drive and that could give the appearance of a shallow front yard. Ronald Roberts asked how far the new porch and steps would encroach into the setback. The current steps are at a 22- foot setback and the proposed steps will be placed at a 22' 8" setback. Joseph Donnelly said that the proposed porch will actually have a decreased setback from the existing stairs. He also pointed out there may be some discrepancy in the measurements on the plat of survey due to the curvature in the road. He further stated that the proposed porch will not change the side view of the streetscape and there is little to no difference on how far the proposed porch will encroach the front yard versus the existing stairs. Acting Chair Roberts acknowledged this viewpoint. Acting Chair Roberts called for additional questions, hearing none, the hearing was closed at 8:03 pm. Joseph Donnelly summarized that while the Petitioner's request is not ideal, he feels that potentially inaccurate measurements resulted in the home being built at a sub-standard setback. Ronald Roberts pointed out that there were no other residents from the neighborhood at the meeting to object. Also, the aesthetics of the project are appealing and add a lot of architectural interest to the neighborhood. Keith Youngquist stated that 5-foot front yard encroachments have become a common request and that the Petitioner has done an excellent job of architecturally presenting his proposal. The Commission concluded that they feel this is a pro-active project to improve a single-family residence in the neighborhood. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the proposed variation of the front yard setback as submitted by the Petitioner for the residence at 1705 Verde Drive, Case No. PZ-41-05 with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Temporarylntcrnct Filcs\OLK2\PZ-41~05 1705 Verde Dr Vat Front Yard Setback doc ".""-""'''''''''~'''''''''-'',>,'",':~:~".' -'F''.',~':''':fC!''''''~''=,W'''1;;I'C'.""",;I!r.','''-;~,:"",,-.,,,\,:="':!.;,''''f_~~"",~,,,",,,,,...._o:ny-,,,,.,.,,,,,,..~=.,.....~,,.,,,..,...."______~__..___.,.__.______..__..