Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2007 P&Z minutes 12-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-07 Hearing Date: April 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2202 Lawrence Lane PETITIONER: Rose Cosmano PUBLICATION DATE: April II, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 08-10-301-078-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Lot Coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: James Cosmano and Rose Cosmano Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2007 and April 12, 2007 meetings and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0 with Mary McCabe abstaining. After hearing four previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ-12-07, a request for a Variation at 2202 Lawrence Lane, at 10:20 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Lawrence Lane, between Douglas Avenue and Meier Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RI Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District to the north, east, and west and a multi-family development located in Arlington Heights to the south. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and complies with the Village's minimum lot size regulation. Ms. Connolly showed an exhibit illustrating the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which entail constructing an 18'x24' deck in the rear yard. The deck would be located next to the existing 16'x25' concrete patio, which the Petitioner intends to keep. The Petitioner notes in their application that the structures would be connected by a ramp. The Subject Property currently has 41.6% lot coverage and the addition of the deck would bring the site to 47% lot coverage. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to exceed the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage as the lot coverage limitation for the RI District is 45%. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property does not comply the Village's zoning regulations. The attached garage is required to maintain a 6.5' interior side yard setback, but the plat notes a 6' setback. The structure is a legal nonconforming structure that is allowed to remain and be repaired/maintained. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the RI Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized the findings: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-12-07 Page 2 . 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. Connolly said the Building Division files document that deck construction was initiated without the benefit of a permit in November 2006. Since that time, the Petitioner has applied for a permit to construct the deck twice, but each permit was denied because the site still exceeded the 45% lot coverage limitation. Prior to applying for a Variation, Staff met with the Petitioner and identified alternatives that would comply with the Village's zoning regulations. However, the Petitioner decided to pursue the Variation request. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner notes in their application that the deck is necessary to provide access to the home for a handicap family member. The only access to the home would be via the cement patio, up a ramp, and through the deck. The Petitioner did not include information on the ramp with this submittal, so it is unclear why the patio or portions of it could not be removed so the site would not exceed 45% lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said the Zoning Ordinance limits the site to no more than 45% lot coverage. She said Engineering reviewed the request and noted that one aspect of the lot coverage requirement is to control stormwater runoff. The receiving storm sewers and detention ponds are typically designed to accommodate the runoff generated by the maximum permitted lot coverage. She stated that the Engineering Staff is not comfortable with any precedent that would increase the lot coverage and stormwater runoff beyond the anticipated design flows, especially if a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance does not exist. Consequently, Engineering recommends denying the applicant's request to exceed the maximum permissible lot coverage. Ms. Connolly stated that the deck may not be visible from the street, and would have minimal impact on the neighborhood character. However, the topographical conditions are not unique to the Subject Property. Also, cumulative additional lot coverage could create adverse impacts for other properties if the storm sewers cannot function properly as a result of additional lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said the Variation request to allow 47% lot coverage fails to meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance as the Petitioner has code compliant alternatives to provide handicap access to the home without exceeding the Village's lot coverage limitations. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow 47% lot coverage for the construction of a deck in the rear yard, as shown in the Petitioner's exhibit, date stamped March 30, 2007, for the residence at 2202 Lawrence Lane, Case Number PZ-12-07." Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if there were questions for Staff; the Commission did not have any questions. Chairperson Juracek swore in James Cosmano, 2202 Lawrence Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Cosmano stated he is here on behalf of his mother, Rose Cosmano, the Petitioner. He gave a brief history of the home and stated that Ms. Cosmano's brother, who is confined to a wheelchair, will be moving into the home and needs an accessible entrance into the bi-Ievel home. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-12-07 Page 3 Chairperson Juracek asked Mr. Cosmano if they have considered reducing the size of the patio or the deck to meet the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Cosmano stated that when the patio furniture is in place, there is not enough room to maneuver a wheelchair. Richard Rogers asked if Mr. Cosmano was aware that a 5-foot pathway is all that is required to maneuver a wheelchair, and the deck is shown at 24 feet. Mr. Cosmano said when the patio furniture is in place, the maneuverable space interferes with the livable space. Mr. Rogers said the deck and the patio is nearly 20 feet wide by 60 feet long. Mr. Cosmano states that the patio allows access to the lower level of the home and the deck allows access to the upper level of the home. Chairperson Juracek asked why the deck is being built when a handicap ramp is what appears to be needed. Mr. Cosmano stated that all three structures will allow the Petitioner and her brother easier access to both levels of the home. The patio accesses the lower level, the ramp provides access from the patio to the deck, and the deck provides access to the upper level of the house. Ronald Roberts asked if the ramp is closer to the yard or closer to the home. Mr. Cosmano stated that the ramp will be between the patio and the deck, closer to the home. Mr. Roberts asked what the plans are for the remaining 17-feet of deck space. Mr. Cosmano stated that the deck needs to have livable space such as room for tables and chairs. Chairperson Juracek stated that it appears the Petitioner would no longer use the patio and asked if a sidewalk to the ramp could be a suitable replacement for the patio. Mr. Cosmano stated that a sidewalk is not wide enough to maneuver the wheelchair out of the patio door on to the ramp. Mr. Rogers stated it would be possible with a 5- foot sidewalk; the 5-foot walkway is what is required by State Law. Mr. Cosmano stated that the Petitioner has tried to maneuver the chair in a 5-foot space, but could not. Mr. Roberts stated for clarification that there is a patio door off the patio for access to the lower level of the home, a door off the deck for access to the upper level of the home, and the ramp is needed for access from the patio to the deck. Mr. Cosmano said that is correct and the ramp will be approximately 7 feet from the house, centered on the deck. Chairperson Juracek stated that the ramp renders the patio unusable. Mr. Cosmano said the patio has been on the property for 37 years. He said the ramp will only occupy 3-4 feet of the patio. Chairperson Juracek asked what the grade change is from the patio to the deck. Mr. Cosmano said the deck is approximately 4 feet above the patio. Chairperson Juracek stated they are going to need a fairly long ramp to accomplish that grade. Mr. Cosmano said he believes a 5 foot ramp would accomplish that. Mr. Roberts asked what the remainder of the yard-side of the patio will be used for once the ramp is in place. Mr. Cosmano stated that the space would be used for a barbeque or a table and chairs. Mr. Rogers pointed out that to meet accessibility standards, the Petitioner would need a 40-foot ramp to go up a 4 foot rise. Chairperson Juracek stated that the Petitioner needs to do some more research on what is needed for accessibility. Mary McCabe asked the Petitioner if they had considered doing a ramp to the front entrance. Mr. Cosmano stated that the home is a bi-Ievel and there would be stairs once they entered the house. Mr. Rogers asked for clarification that the Petitioner would have to push the wheelchair outside and up this ramp all throughout the year, as the only point of access to the entire house. Mr. Cosmano stated this is correct. Ellen Divita asked if there are patio doors at both points of access. Mr. Cosmano said they would have to install a sliding door in the kitchen to access the deck. Ms. Divita reminded Mr. Cosmano that a building permit would be Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-12-07 Page 4 needed for the patio door installation. She asked if they planned any other improvements to the home. Mr. Cosmano stated that the deck and sliding door were the only planned improvements. Chairperson Juracek stated that she feels the Commission does not have enough information to grant the Petitioner the Variation. She said more information is needed regarding the requirements for the ramp and how everything will be structurally laid out. Mr. Cosmano said they would be happy to come back before the Commission with that information. Mr. Floros stated that he is having a hard time visualizing what the Petitioner is asking for; Mr. Cosmano referred to the drawings in his application packet. Chairperson Juracek pointed out that the ramp in the proposed drawings will not be sufficient to provide access between the patio and deck. Mr. Roberts made a motion to table Case Number PZ-12-07 to the May 24, 2007. Mr. Rogers seconded the motion. Ms. Connolly asked if the Commission is looking for detailed drawings of the handicap ramp, rear elevations and floor plans. Chairperson Juracek stated they would need to see detailed plans for the exterior project, the patio, the deck, and the ramp. Mr. Rogers said he would like more information on why the project needs to exceed the lot coverage limitations. Chairperson Juracek stated the Petitioner should work with a design professional to ensure that the ramp is not so steep that it is unusable. She reminded Mr. Cosmano that this case is before the Commission solely due to lot coverage; if they can design a project that meets the 45% lot coverage requirement they would not have to ask for the Variation. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, McCabe, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After discussing the Zoning Ordinance update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 10:48 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and SeUings\kdcwis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ~12-07 2202 Lawrence Lane,doc