Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2009 P&Z minutes 30-08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-30-08 Hearing Date: January 22, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1816 Bonita Avenue PETITIONER: Rhonda Lane PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-10-205-026-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Front Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Rhonda Lane and Steve Virgilio Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He introduced the newest Planning and Zoning Commission member, William Beattie. Leo F10ros made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 23,2008 meeting; Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to continue Case PZ-29-08 to the February 26, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-30-08, a request for a Variation (Front Yard Setback) at 1816 Bonita Avenue, at 7:45 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Planner, said the Petitioner is the property owner for the subject property. The Petitioner was requesting a front yard setback Variation for a porch. Ms. Andrade stated the property is zoned R- I Single Family Residential. The property consists of a single family residence with a detached garage. The existing structure is non-conforming because it does not comply with the required front yard setback in the R-1 district and because the house was constructed across property lines. Ms. Andrade said the property size is irregular as the front and rear property lines differ in width. The depth of the property varies as well. The front property line is not linear in nature; the front setback for the home differs. Ms. Andrade stated that the setback at the Southeast comer of the home is 29.06 feet, closer to the center it is approximately 28 feet, and at the Southwest comer ofthe home the setback is 29.42 feet. Ms. Andrade said in 2008, the Petitioner applied for a building permit for numerous improvements including a building addition to the rear of the home, a deck, front stoop, and front porch. Staff approved the permit, with the exception of the front porch as it did not satisfy the required 25 foot front yard setback, which is a condition of approval of a Conditional Use for a front unenclosed porch. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to construct a porch encroaching five feet into the existing legal nonconforming front setback. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 2 Ms. Andrade showed a detailed site plan of the proposed porch. The porch would be located next to a five foot by eight foot stoop that is permitted by code. The porch would measure five feet out from the house and would be eleven feet four inches wide. Ms. Andrade stated that the front yard setback at the Southeast comer of the porch would be 24.06 feet and the Southwest comer of the porch would be approximately 23 feet. Ms. Andrade showed a table comparing the R-I District's bulk requirements with the petitioner's proposal: R-l Single Family District Existing Proposed Porch Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' house 29.42' at the SW comer 23' at the SW corner 25' porch 29.06' atthe SE comer 24.06' at the SE corner 10' or 10% lot width 9' (west) 40' (west) Interior (whichever is less) 18.42' (east) 18' (east) Rear 25' 106' from the deck No change LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 22.3% 22.7% Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner's proposal would satisfy the bulk requirements, with the exception ofthe front yard setback of the porch. Ms. Andrade summarized the Variation standards. Staff did not find that the proposed setback Variation complied with the standards listed in the zoning code; therefore Staff did not see a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Andrade showed a picture of other homes and their setbacks along Bonita Avenue. Most of the homes in the area have an existing 29 or 30 foot setback. The proposed porch would significantly reduce the front setback to approximately 23 feet. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended denial of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers stated part of the problem was that the building is already non-conforming and extends into the front yard setback. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission has been allowing a five foot encroachment into the front yard from the original 30 foot setback. He stated that this case, the Petitioner could legally install a 3 foot unenclosed porch for a Conditional Use. The five feet encroaches into the 25 foot setback. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the Petitioner was requesting a 23 foot setback in lieu of a 25 foot setback. Ms. Andrade stated that this was correct. Mr. Donnelly said the stoop in the front has to be a five foot minimum. Ms. Andrade stated the zoning ordinance allows a five foot by eight foot maximum size. The existing stoop measures approximately less than the five feet by eight feet. The stoop is permitted to encroach in the front yard. Ms. Andrade said the stoop would be demolished with the proposed improvements on the site. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the addition of the porch makes a difference in this case. Chairman Floros asked if Staff had heard anything from the neighbors. Ms Andrade stated that she had not received any phone calls or objections from the neighbors regarding the Petitioner's request. Chairman Rogers swore in Rhonda Lane and Steve Virgilio of 1816 Bonita Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lane stated that they are building a second story, back mud room, and a porch. She wanted to add character for her home. Ms. Lane stated that they have been working with an architect who originally designed a covered stoop and a porch with no roof. She decided this was not what they wanted since she knew this would not get approved. Ms. Lane said the house sits on a concave curve and sits back; the proposed porch would not stick out. She stated Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 3 that the houses on both sides are single story homes; the owners of these properties are both in favor of the proposed porch. She wanted the porch to increase front yard activity. Mr. Virgilio said he wanted to improve the aesthetics of the home without overdoing it. He also wanted to create front yard activity. Chairman Rogers said he applauded what the Petitioners were trying to do here. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to maintain an open area between the houses. Chairman Rogers said the Planning and Zoning Commission has allowed unenclosed porches to create the atmosphere that the Petitioners have mentioned. He finds it difficult to go beyond the 25 foot setback. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they could live with a three foot porch in lieu of a five foot porch; this would solve the problem. Mr. Virgilio stated that they have looked at a smaller porch, but they have a front bay window where the porch would be located. He said it would be very expensive to remove and replace with a flat window. Mr. Virgilio stated that he does not find a three foot porch desirable; it would be very tight and not add the look that they are striving for. He looked at this with the architect and contractor; there was no other resolution as a redesign would mean a teardown would have to occur. He would not want to go this way due to the high costs. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioners were at a disadvantage because the builder built the house too close to the street. Mr. Donnelly asked ifthe porch area would have a roof over it. Ms. Lane said it would have a roof. Mr. Donnelly stated that the drawings did not show a roof over the porch; only a roof over the stoop. Ms. Lane stated that the porch was originally designed without a roof, but decided that a roof would look better. Mr. Donnelly stated that the reason why a porch without a roof wouldn't look right was that you end up with a front deck; not a front porch. Porches have roofs, decks don't. He stated the home is too close to the road due to the curve and because of the curve the porch wouldn't stick out too much. He said this would be a hardship for the Petitioner. There was general discussion regarding the curve ofthe road and the setbacks of the surrounding homes. Chairman Rogers stated that the problem was that the houses across the street are also setback 29 feet and if they allow this they set a precedent for the people across the street. With a precedent, the board wouldn't be able to say no to the people across the street that are on the convex part of the road. Out of suddenly they would be really closing up that streetscape. Mr. Beattie asked the Petitioners without a porch, this project would be a tear down. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the Petitioners that they could have a stoop without the porch and the house would not be a teardown. Mr. Youngquist asked what the roof looked like because the drawings that the Planning and Zoning Commission had were not accurate because a lattice was shown over the porch instead of a roof. There was general discussion regarding the roof Ms. Lane stated that there were a few cases where the Board approved side yard or front yard setback Variations. There was general discussion regarding precedent setting cases that involved Variations for front yard setbacks. Chariman Rogers stated that the property didn't fit that, because the property was on a street with a lot of 29' setbacks. Mr. Donnelly stated that the stoop is legal at 23 feet, where the major problem is. He said the front porch is less than a foot. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers confirmed that the stoop is legal and can be in the front yard. He asked if the Petitioners could live with a four foot porch instead of a three of five foot porch so that they would stay behind the 25 foot setback. Mr. Virgilio stated that a three foot porch gives them 1.4 feet from the bay window to the end of the porch. He said this would not be practical; a four foot porch only adds another foot. Mr. Youngquist stated there is an exemption to porches, five feet was the determining size based on what the Petitioners have discussed about being able to utilize the space. He said going shorter does not work. Mr. Youngquist stated a lot of porches in town are five feet into the setback and extend across the entire home. This situation is only about half of the house. He said there is a hardship due to the curvature ofthe front property line with the house being built closer to the road. Mr. Floros stated there was a hardship with this case. He said in the past, five feet has been the optimum size. Mr. Floros stated by asking the Petitioners to go smaller would impose a hardship on them. He does not have a problem with approving this request. Mr. Beattie had concerns not knowing what the porch would look like because the drawings showed a roof over the stoop but no roof over the porch. Mr. Virgilio said it would be a covered trellis look, angled at a 15 degree pitch. It would not extend beyond that porch and would be shingled. Chairman Rogers asked if the gable in the middle would have a flat roof or shed type roof for the remainder of the porch. Ms. Lane stated that it would not be flat; 15 degrees may be too flat as it would angle up. There was further discussion regarding the roof. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, discussed the design perspective. He pointed out the gable above the entrance with the peak; he said the Petitioners could have a roof that matches that pitch, but it would be against the house. It would slop down towards the front of the porch so there would be the same slope across that actually would slope away from the structure. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the Petitioners that the roof of the porch would not be as high as the gable. Chairman Rogers stated that his major concern was not to set a precedent with this case. He stated that the Petitioners' situation entailed the inside of a curve and limited street frontage for the home; something the houses on the opposite side of the street do not have. They have the widest section of the property on the street, while the Petitioner had the smallest portion of the property on the street. This would not set a precedent for other homes on Bonita to allow them to extend out beyond the 25 foot setback. Mr. Youngquist wanted the record to reflect that the porch is only half the width of the house; it is not an entire structure along the whole front of the house. Chairman Rogers said a good portion of the porch is four feet; the Petitioners would only be extending a foot over the limit rather than two feet. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 5 Mr. Virgilio stated the stoop would be 5 feet by 8 feet regardless. The encroachment there is two feet into the setback. He said as it tailors off to the Southeast comer of the house it becomes a half of a foot difference at that very comer. Chairman Rogers stated the porch would be encroaching one foot in the comer and two feet in the center. Mr. Donnelly said the two feet is the stoop and not the porch. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case and brought it back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve a Variation to allow a 23 to 24.06 foot front yard setback for an unenclosed porch, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1816 Bonita Avenue, Case No. PZ-30-08, subject to the following condition: I. The Subject Property shall be platted as one lot. A final plat is required to be submitted for review and approval. Chairman Rogers wanted to include in the motion that this case involved an interior concave curve, so the Planning and Zoning Commission was not setting a precedent for future porches. Mr. Donnelly said that the unenclosed porch could never be enclosed. Ms. Andrade discussed the condition placed in the motion. Staff recommended that the property be platted as a lot of record since the house was constructed along property lines of Lot 9 and Lot 10. There was general discussion regarding the creation of a lot of record. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. After hearing one additional case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:41 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant