Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 04/20/2010 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Kom John 1. Matuszak Steven S. Pol it Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday April 22, 2010 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 25, 2010 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-03-10 / 13 Westgate Road / Saldana Residence / Variation (Setbacks & Roof Pitch). IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-02-10 / 2004 Pin Oak Drive / Schuler Residence / Variation (Setbacks & Lot Coverage). This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-10 Hearing Date: February 25, 2010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 13 Westgate Road PETITIONER: Fred N. Saldana PUBLICATION DATE: February 10,2010 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-401-009-0000 REQUEST: Variations (Side Yard Setback for an Accessory Structure and Roof Pitch for an Accessory Structure) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development William Schroeder, Building Commissioner INTERESTED PARTY: Fred Saldana Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2010 meeting; Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0; with Mr. Foggy abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-03-10, 13 Westgate Road, at 7:34 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-03-10 was requesting Variations to decrease the required side yard setback and roof pitch for a garage addition located at 13 Westgate Road. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the east side of Westgate Road and is zoned R-I Single Family Residence. The site contains a single-family residence with related improvements as illustrated on the 2009 Plat of Survey. The detached garage and shed on the property are non-conforming as the required side yard setbacks are not met. Ms. Andrade stated the garage addition was constructed in the fall 2009 without a permit. As currently constructed, the garage addition encroaches into the required side yard 2.65 feet and has a one to twelve (I: 12) roof pitch. The Village Code requires a minimum five (5) foot setback and a three to twelve (3:12) roof pitch for accessory structures. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to decrease the required side yard setback from five (5) feet to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2'-4W') and to decrease the required roof pitch from three to twelve (3: 12) to one to twelve (1: 12) units. Ms. Andrade said the garage addition roughly measures 20 feet wide by 10 feet deep. The garage addition was attached to a detached garage with a pitched roof that measures 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep. The height of the garage addition increases from 9 feet tall in the front to 10 feet tall in the rear. Per the Petitioner's drawings, the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 20 I 0 PZ-03-10 Page 1 of5 roof pitch is one to twelve and standard sloped shingles were used for the roof, which require steeper roof pitches as per the Village Code. Ms. Andrade stated Staff reviewed the pennit history for the subject property to detennine when the structures on the subject property were constructed. Staff found that plumbing penn its were issued in 1970 and 2002. A fence pennit was issued in 2008 and a roof pennit for the house and garage was issued in 2009. There were no penn its on file for the pool, deck, shed, or the detached garage. Ms. Andrade said in addition to reviewing pennits, Staff reviewed the plat of surveys on file for the property. Surveys from 1979 and 1989 both showed a garage measuring 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep. The new 2009 survey illustrated a larger garage than is shown on the 1979 and 1989 plats of survey. Ms. Andrade showed a table comparing the RI Bulk Requirements to the garage addition: Code Requirements Existing Proposed SETBACKS: Front Side Side S Rear ROOF PITCH FAR LOT COVERAGE The garage addition complies with the required front, side yard to the south, and rear yard setbacks. In addition, the FAR and lot coverage regulations are met. However, the garage addition fails to meet the required 5 foot side yard setback to the north property line and the three to twelve roof pitch. Ms. Andrade stated the purpose of the nonconforming provisions in the Village Code are to allow existing structures/uses to remain, but over time when replaced to bring properties into compliance. Ms. Andrade said per Section 14.402 of the Zoning Code, the replacement of any structure on the property, as is claimed by the petitioner, requires the new replacement structure to meet bulk regulations for the zoning district. In this case, the removal of the non-conforming garage addition in 1992 would require any replacement structure to meet the required bulk regulations. By code the garage would need to be located at least five feet (5') feet from the side property line and have a three to twelve (3: 12) roof pitch. Ms. Andrade stated according to the Building Division, the garage addition does not comply with the Village Building Code or the International Residential Code. Specifically, the garage addition does not comply with the required footings, floor, header, bracing, structural ties, lumber fasteners, and roof pitch. Ms. Andrade 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. The following is a summary of these findings: . 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. Andrade said the Petitioner's narrative stated that the garage addition was removed in 1992 and replaced in the fall of 2009 because it had become an eye sore and was structurally dangerous. However, the necessary Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25,2010 Page 2 of5 penn its were not obtained for the demolition or addition. As constructed, the garage addition does not comply with the Village Zoning and Building Codes. While the Petitioner said that the he replaced what was there because it was structurally unsound, the detached garage was non-confonning and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply with Code requirements. A garage addition can be redesigned and constructed to meet Code requirements on the Subject Property. The alleged hardship presented in this case has therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. Ms. Andrade stated based on Staff's review of the Variation standards, Staff does not believe that either requested Variation satisfies the criteria. If the requested Variations are granted, the structure would need to be modified in order to comply with the Village's Building Code requirements as detailed in the staff report. Therefore, Ms. Andraded stated that Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Youngquist asked ifthe square footage ofthe garage in its current state met Village Code. Ms. Andrade said the current garage does comply with the maximum size permitted as well as the lot coverage for the subject property . Chainnan Rogers said he understood there were several issues regarding this case: the side yard setback and roof pitch; he asked if the asphalt driveway was the garage floor in the entire garage or the addition alone. Ms. Andrade stated that it was staff's understanding that the driveway was the floor only in the garage addition. Chainnan Rogers stated he will talk to the Petitioner to find out if the driveway goes into the garage itself. He also confirmed that the garage was built on piers instead of a foundation, Ms. Andrade stated that was correct. Chainnan Rogers swore in Fred Saldana, 13 Westgate Road, Mount Prospect, I11inois. Mr. Saldana said that the garage addition never had a garage door because it was not sound enough. His plan was to put a garage door on the garage addition. Mr. Saldana said he tore down the original garage addition in 1992 because it was not safe, he did not know that he had one year to re-build the same structure. The new addition was constructed when Mr. Saldana had the resources. Chainnan Rogers asked the Petitioner if he built the garage addition and if he was a builder. Mr. Saldana stated that he did construct the addition with help and said he is a union electrician. Mr. Saldana confirmed that the floor under the garage addition and the garage itself was blacktop (asphalt). He said that the addition was placed on piers because of the forty two inch (42") frost line requirement for foundation; he thought the piers were the best way to frame up the addition. Mr. Saldana said he had a statement from the contractor who helped him install the piers. Mr. Saldana stated that the garage addition was added for additional storage. He said he was also able to add new garage doors to the new structure. Mr. Saldana said the new roof contained an ice/water shield that the old roof did not have. He did not utilize the higher pitch due to the windows in the garage prevented him from doing so. He stated everything could be adjusted and brought up to code. Mr. Saldana said he understood he did something wrong but thought knocking the structure down would not be fair. He stated the structure looks and fits on the property better than it did before. Mr. Saldana said he is not encroaching on his neighbor, even with the shade of the structure. Chainnan Rogers asked Mr. Saldana if he was aware of the permit process. Mr. Saldana believed the garage addition and the asphalt flooring were grandfathered in. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner built the garage, Mr. Saldana said no, it was there when he purchased the property. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 PZ-03-10 Page 3 of5 Chairman Rogers clarified that the neighbor to the north installed the fence; this is when the Petitioner realized he was 2.5 feet from the property line. Chairman Rogers also confirmed there was no permit for the swimming pool. Mr. Saldana stated that this existed on the property when it was purchased. He also said the shed was an existing structure too. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he knew the garage addition was an unsafe structure. Chairman Rogers mentioned that the Petitioner was putting almost 7,000 pounds of load on two of the front piers. The Village requires a continuous foundation to spread the load over the entire soil. There was additional discussion regarding the safety and load capacity of the piers that were installed by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers stated that he thought that the Petitioner had no choice other than to tear down the garage addition because it is unsafe. He said a new structure could be built and moved five feet from the property line to meet code. The existing garage could remain as long as there was no major work being completed on it. Chairman Rogers said if the entire garage was replaced, then it would have to be moved five feet. Chairman Rogers said the asphalt flooring does not conform to Code and should be replaced with concrete. He stated there are several issues that need to be taken care of by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers asked Staff if they had a license and bond for the fence contractor, Fence Menders. Ms. Andrade stated that Fence Menders did have a Contractor's License that expired on December 31, 2009. Chairman Rogers said based on the fence contractor's notes and affidavit, he should have known the setback and the fact that a garage addition could not be built on piers. Mr. Saldana said he misunderstood the Code Requirements for the attached garage. There was discussion regarding Village Code and the full foundation that was needed below the garage addition. Mr. Youngquist discussed the foundation requirements. He said piers are not appropriate. Mr. Youngquist stated that the Petitioner lined the garage addition so two cars could fit into the garage. In order for compliance, the Petitioner would need to shift the addition five feet and that would misalign the garage and the addition. Mr. Youngquist asked if the existing garage was made of dry wall. Mr. Saldana said the garage is insulated and dry walled inside. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner would need to tear the garage addition down; there is no way he can keep it. He said if it was not tom down, it will eventually fall down. Chairman Rogers suggested that if the Petitioner rebuilds the addition, to move it five feet to bring it into compliance. Mr. Saldana asked if he could put a foundation wall underneath the existing structure. There was a general consensus that putting a wall underneath the existing structure would cost a lot more money than tearing down and rebuilding. There was discussion regarding the support beam of the garage addition. Chairman Rogers stated that the Building Department would have helped the Petitioner if a permit was pulled or if any questions needed to be answered. Mr. Foggy asked if a demolition permit would be required for the Petitioner to remove the garage addition. Chairman Rogers stated that this was correct. Mr. Youngquist said it was unfortunate that the Petitioner has a large side yard on the south side of the property with everything jammed along the north end. He suggested that the Petitioner consult an architect to see if the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 PZ-03-10 Page 4 of 5 garage addition could be extended five additional feet. Mr. Youngquist stated that because of his professional background he could not support the Variations. There was discussion regarding several of the issues on-hand: the asphalt floor, the structure of the addition, and the proximity to the north property line. Chairman Rogers suggested that the Petitioner replace the entire garage and addition. He said the Petitioner would move the entire structure to the south five feet and have a new garage with a concrete floor. There was discussion regarding the maximum size garage allowed in the Village. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner's garage met Village Code size requirements. Mr. Simmons stated the proposed addition did not meet the side yard setback because it encroached into the setback. The existing structure is allowed to remain as it is currently constructed within 2.5 feet of the property line, any new addition to that would have to meet the Code. The Petitioner could expand the structure, as long as the side yard setback was met for the new expansion. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the meeting and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve: I. A Variation request to decrease the required to side yard setback from five-feet (5) to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2'-4W'); and 2. A Variation request to decrease the required roof pitch from three twelve (3: 12) to one twelve (1:12) units for the residence located at 13 Westgate, Case No. PZ-03-10. Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: None NA YS: Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5-0. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% ofthe Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8: 15 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~% Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 20 I 0 PZ-03-10 Page 5 of 5 MAYOR VILLAGE MANAGER Irvana K. Wilks Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Paul Wm. Hoefert M. Lisa Angell Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn Phone: 847/392-6000 John J. Matuszak Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountprospect.org Steven S. Polit Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY APRIL 22, 2010 HAS BEEN CANCELLED