Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/27/2007 P&Z minutes 34-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-34-07 Hearing Date: September 27, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1406 Small Lane PETITIONER: Jeanette Wendel PUBLICATION DATE: August 8, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-35-411-015-0000 REQUEST: Variation (setbacks and lot coverage) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Mary McCabe STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Jeanette Wendel, Dan Gajewski Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2007 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Marlys Haaland, Ronald Roberts, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. After hearing five previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-34-07, a request for Variation at 1406 Small Lane at 10:34 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Small Lane, between Stratton and Stevenson Lanes, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the Rl District to the north, east, and west and the CR Conservation Recreation District to the south. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and complies with the Village's minimum lot size regulation. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner extended the existing driveway and constructed a parking pad without the benefit of a permit. Information from the Building Division indicates the parking pad was noticed during an inspection for another project at the Subject Property. The Petitioner was then instructed to obtain a permit for the parking pad. She stated that a permit review was conducted in the fall of 2006, and the Petitioner was notified that the parking pad did not comply with the Village's setback regulations and that the lot exceeded the maximum amount of lot coverage. Consequently, the project would have to be modified to comply with Village regulations. The Petitioner is now seeking approval of the existing pad, which requires Variation approval because the pad encroaches in the required side and rear yards, and the site has 47.4% lot coverage, which exceeds the 45% lot coverage limitation. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property does not comply the Village's zoning regulations as a small portion of the house encroaches into the front setback slightly and the patio shown on the Petitioner's site plan is located in an easement and encroaches into the required 7.5-foot side yard. Staff was not able to locate a permit for the Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 27,2007 PZ-34-07 Page 2 patio or the shed also shown on the Petitioner's site plan. Before the patio can be classified as a legal nonconforming structure, additional information from the Petitioner is necessary. Ms. Connolly showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized these findings as: . 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 ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner notes in their application that the parking pad is necessary to accommodate maneuvering multiple vehicles into the side loading garage and to accommodate storing seasonal recreational equipment. The Petitioner obtained letters of support from the adjacent property owners, which were included with the submittal. Ms. Connolly said the Zoning Ordinance defines a Variation as a dispensation permitted on individual parcels of property as a method of alleviating unnecessary hardship by allowing a reasonable use of the building, structure or property which, because of unusual or unique circumstances, is denied by this code. She stated that the standards for granting a Variation are based on finding that there is a hardship due to physical conditions related to the Subject Property because owners may change and new owners may see the situation differently. As such, the definition section of the Zoning Ordinance clarifies the issue by defining a hardship as a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances. Ms. Connolly said in this case, the Subject Property is typical of most Rl District lots, but the manner in which the property was developed, i.e. side loading garage requiring the driveway to be located along the side lot line, may prohibit the Petitioner from meeting the required setbacks for a parking pad. However, it appears the original driveway configuration was elongated to provide vehicles ease in maneuvering in to and out of the 2-car garage. She stated that the parking pad constructed by the Petitioner does not facilitate entering or exiting the garage but serves primarily as a storage area for vehicles and recreational vehicles. Therefore, the parking pad serves more of a convenience than allowing the Petitioner adequate access to/from the garage and its location does not meet the standards for granting a Variation. Ms. Connolly stated in addition, that the Subject Property exceeds the 45% lot coverage limit as a result of the construction of the parking pad; the parking pad measures 385 square feet and the site exceeds the Village's lot coverage limitation by 242:i: square feet. The site would meet lot coverage limits if the pad was removed. Ms. Connolly said the parking pad is visible from the street and while it may have resolved a previous property maintenance violation, it created non-complying setbacks and excessive lot coverage. As noted in previous lot coverage Variation requests, 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. In addition, the Petitioner has the option of storing the seasonal equipment on the existing patio, which is screened from the street view. Ms. Connolly stated that the Variation requests to allow a parking pad to encroach into the side and rear yards and to allow 47.4% lot coverage fails to meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance as the request is based on convenience and not a hardship. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 27,2007 PZ-34-07 Page 3 "To approve a Variation to allow a parking pad with a 5-foot rear setback and a 1.67-foot side setback, and to allow 47.4% lot coverage, as shown in the Petitioner's exhibit, for the residence at 1406 Small Lane, Case Number PZ-34-07." The Village Board's decision is final for this case because the amount of the setback Variations exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairman Rogers asked for questions for Staff. Keith Youngquist asked how this parking pad was discovered. Ms. Connolly said an inspector was on-site for a kitchen remodel inspection. Chairman Rogers swore in Jenny Wendel and Dan Gajewski of 1406 Small Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Wendel said her driveway is unique to her neighborhood as most of the surrounding homes have two-car garages with wider driveways. She said that the parking pad was put in to create a turn-around area for vehicles parked in the garage. Until the parking pad was paved, they had been parking on the grass and wood chips. Ms. Wendel stated they have several letters from neighbors in support of their parking pad. She showed several pictures of neighboring properties; stating that her parking pad allows for more aesthetic storage of vehicles. Chairman Rogers said he is very concerned with the property exceeding lot coverage. He said the concern is not only for water drainage in the immediate neighborhood, but the entire Village. Allowances cannot be allowed because then everyone would think that these minor overages are OK. There was discussion concerning the location of the existing shed and that the Village does not have a record of a permit for this structure. Ms. Wendel said the shed on the property has been there for 13-15 years. She stated that her ex-husband recalls that the Village indicated to them that as long as they received clearance from the utility company, there was no permit required from the Village for the existing shed. Ms. Connolly said that she cannot speak to permit regulations from 13-15 years ago, but current code prohibits locating a shed in an easement. Keith Youngquist asked if the lot coverage includes the shed. Ms. Connolly confirmed that calculation does include the shed. Mr. Youngquist reviewed calculations and made some suggestions for alternative configurations. There was general discussion regarding maneuvering vehicles in and out of the property. Mr. Youngquist stated that his major concern is the lot coverage. Chairman Rogers also stated that the parking pad is located into the easement. Joseph Donnelly said he can appreciate the difficulty in maneuvering the vehicles on their property, but the lot coverage is a major concern. Ms. Wendel asked if her option at this point is to remove something else from the property. Chairman Rogers stated that she will need to reduce lot coverage and get the pad out of the easement. There was general discussion regarding what structures could be removed to comply with the maximum amount of allowable lot coverage. Chairman Rogers reiterated that aside from removing structures to reduce lot coverage, they also need to remove the pad out of the easement. Chairman Rogers said a minimum of 3 feet will need to come off the back of the parking pad to get out of the easement and an additional 200+ feet of lot coverage will need to be removed to get under the lot coverage (for a total of 240+ feet). He suggested the Petitioner work with Staff to get the exact number of square footage that needs to be removed. Chairman Rogers asked if Ms. Wendel is willing to work on reducing the lot coverage by removing impervious surfaces from her lot. Ms. Wendel said she is willing to look at her options. Ms. Connolly stated that the even with the reduced lot coverage, a Variation would still be required for the setbacks. There was additional discussion regarding the Variation. The Commission suggested that this Case be continued to the next meeting to give the Petitioner time to work on reducing the lot coverage. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 27,2007 PZ-34-07 Page 4 Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ-34-07 to the October 25, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Richards, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn 11: 17 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-34-07 1406 Small Lane- lot coverage.doc