Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 05/25/2010 MAYOR Mount VILLAGE MANAGER Irvana K. Wilks Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Paul Wm. Hoefert M. Lisa Angell Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn M P Phone: 847/392 -6000 John J. Matuszak Fax: 847/392 -6022 Steven S. Polit TDD: 847 /392 -6064 Michael A. Zadel www.mountprospect.org Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 CANCELLATION NOTICE PURSUANT TO THE SUMMER MEETING SCHEDULE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BOARD OF TRUSTEES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2010 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS SCHEDULED FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2010 Dated this 21 day of May 2010 Mount Prospect M P MAYOR VILLAGE MANAGER Irvana K. Wilks Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Paul Wm. Hoefert M. Lisa Angell Arlene A.Juracek Village of Mount Prospect A. John Korn John J. Matuszak Community Development Department Phone: 847/818 -5328 Steven S. Polit Fax: 847/818 -5329 Michael A. Zadel 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392 -6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mount Prospect Village Hall Thursday 50 S. Emerson Street May 27, 2010 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22, 2010 P &Z MEETING A. PZ -02 -10 / 2004 Pin Oak Drive / Schuler Residence / Variation (Setbacks & Lot Coverage). IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ -07 -10 / 903 W. Isabella / Cecala Residence / Conditional Use (Circular Driveway). 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 May 27, 2010 Page 1 of 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -02 -10 Hearing Date: April 22, 2010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2004 Pin Oak Drive PETITIONER: Thomas F. Schuler PUBLICATION DATE: March 10, 2010 PIN NUMBER: 03 -25- 209 - 021 -0000 REQUEST: 1) Variation to Side & Rear Yard Setback for an Accessory Structure 2) Variation to Increase the Maximum Lot Coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Theo Foggy STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Keith Hunt, Tom Schuler, Joy Schuler Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. The February 25, 2010 Planning and Zoning Meeting minutes were approved 3 -0; with Mr. Beattie and Mr. Roberts abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 02 -10, 2004 Pin Oak Drive, at 7:35 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -02 -10 requested Variations to the required setbacks and lot coverage for property located at 2004 Pin Oak Drive. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Pin Oak Drive and is zoned R -1 Single Family Residential. She showed the Plat of Survey as submitted by the Petitioner that depicted the existing conditions of the site. The site currently contained a single - family residence with related improvements. There were a number of nonconforming items. The overall lot coverage exceeded the maximum 45% permitted by Code. The principal structure at the southeast corner did not comply with the required side yard setback. And the patio encroached into the required side yard. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner indicated that a portion of the patio was constructed by the previous owner. She referenced a picture that showed the patio encroaching into the required side yard and extended to the edge of the existing porch. In the summer of 2009, the Petitioner applied for a deck permit. The permit was denied by Village Staff as the property exceeded lot coverage. Following the denial, the Petitioner expanded the brick paver patio to the north by adding a 14 foot wide by 14'8" patio addition without a permit. Per the Petitioner's exhibits, approximately 205 square feet was added to the existing patio. Ms. Andrade showed a slide that illustrated the constructed patio encroaching 6.5 feet into the required side yard and four feet into the required rear yard. The patio also encroached into an existing 35 foot storm water detention easement. Ms. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 1 of 5 Andrade said with the enlargement of the patio, the extent of the non - conforming lot coverage increased. The Petitioner was seeking a Variation to allow a 0 foot side yard setback along the west lot line, an 11 foot rear yard setback, and to increase the maximum lot coverage from 45% to 51% to allow the patio to remain as currently constructed. Ms. Andrade referenced the R1 Bulk Requirements: Rl Single Family District Previously Existing Minimum Requirements (w /o enlarged patio) (w/ enlarged patio) SETBACKS: Front 30' 31.25' No change Interior (W) 6.5' (10% lot width) 0' (patio) 0' (patio) Interior (E) 6.5' (10% lot width) 55.11' (patio) 51' (patio) Rear 15' 27.75'(patio) 11 ' (patio) FAR .5 Maximum .36 No Change LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 47% 51% The table above compared the R1 Bulk Requirements to the subject property. The Village Code required a 6.5 foot side setback and 15 foot rear yard setback. The patio was constructed up to the west property line and 11 feet to the rear property line. The overall lot coverage permitted was 45 %. The property was non - conforming prior to the patio expansion. With the patio expansion the lot coverage increased from 47% to 51%. Ms. Andrade stated per Section 14.402 of the Zoning Code, any nonconforming driveway, patio, or side walk may be replaced in the same location without complying with the bulk regulations of the Zoning Code, provided such structure is not replaced with a different structure or enlarged to increase the nonconformity of the property. In this case, the Petitioner would have been permitted to replace the patio previously constructed by the last owner with a patio in the same location. However, the enlargement of the patio was not permitted without complying with the setbacks and lot coverage. 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 stated in his application that the slope of the yard renders it dysfunctional and that "there are no other lawns nearby with such a dramatic slope ". Based on an aerial topography of the site, the slope of the Subject Property's backyard appears to be consistent with surrounding properties due to the presence of the storm water detention easement. While the Petitioner stated that he reconstructed the patio that was in place and expanded it for the purpose of creating an outdoor useable area, the extent of the encroachment is significant. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner applied for a permit to construct a wood deck and was denied for reasons discussed earlier; however, the Petitioner proceeded to construct a brick paver patio instead without a permit and was now seeking zoning relief to allow the structure to remain. 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. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 2 of 5 Ms. Andrade stated based on Staff's review of the Variation standards, Staff did not believe that the Variation requests comply with the standards. Therefore, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairman Rogers asked Staff why the deck was classified as non - conforming, when it should not have been allowed. Ms. Andrade said the Property Owner originally applied to add on to the existing wood deck to the east, but was denied by staff. Ms. Andrade clarified the portion of the patio that was originally constructed by the previous owner and replaced by the Petitioner. Ms. Andrade then pointed out the patio addition that the Petitioner constructed without a permit. Chairman Rogers asked if there was a permit for the original patio. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff did not find a permit for the original patio. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the patio was illegal since it went out to the property line. Mr. Simmons stated there was no record of the original patio or service walk, they are non - conforming. He said the Plat of Survey from 1977 did not show the original patio or service walk. Chairman Rogers stated that when the existing home was originally built, there were special requirements for drainage because of the property's proximity to the Des Plaines River. Two of the lots on River Road were never developed because they were held off to be detention areas. Chairman Rogers stated the detention in this subdivision was really critical. Mr. Roberts confirmed that the 35 foot detention easement was for the entire development. He stated that the existing framed porch was already in the storm water detention easement. Mr. Beattie said the Property Owner could not put much in the backyard due to the storm water detention easement. Mr. Youngquist stated that the deck that was constructed in 1998 turned into a porch. Ms. Andrade confirmed that this was correct with permit history. Mr. Roberts asked if there was adequate storm water detention with storm sewers. Chairman Rogers stated that all of the storm water detention was held on the two vacant lots and in the backyards of the properties and eventually would flow into the Des Plaines River. Since there were no storm water sewers, Mr. Roberts said the drainage on the Subject Property was more critical. Mr. Youngquist stated there was a catch basin on the northeast end of the property. Chairman Rogers believed the catch basin was to assist the water to the vacant lots. Chairman Rogers swore in Keith Hunt, 3 First National Plaza, Suite 2100, Chicago, IL 60602. Mr. Hunt stated that he was the attorney representing the Petitioners, Tom and Joyce Schuler. He stated that the Petitioners knew they constructed the porch without permit and it was unlawful. Mr. Hunt said he was attending the hearing to apologize and should his clients be granted the Variations, they would pay for the permit fees and fines. Mr. Hunt stated the patio that was replaced on the side of the house was in disrepair. He said Mrs. Schuler was unable to move around the old patio. Mr. Hunt said that the Petitioners did not know if there originally was a permit issued for the deck. He said the 1977 Plat of Survey did not even indicate the driveway for the home, let alone the side patio and walkway. Mr. Hunt discussed how the existing patio had a non - conforming status to the lot line. He said the walkway along the western lot line runs along most of the house. He asked the Commission to consider the extension of the patio to not include any additional non - conformity along the side yard. He stated that it was true that the patio was enlarged and extended into the rear yard; this was one of the Variations being requested. Mr. Hunt said that he understood Staff had its calculations based on information submitted by the Petitioner. He believed the application was errant to a certain extent because Mr. Schuler drew the lot line at the fence line, but the property line did extend an additional foot to a foot and a half. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Hunt showed an aerial view of the Subject Property. He also showed a picture of the rear yard that illustrated the aforementioned backyard slope. He discussed the location where the 1998 patio was built upon where the backyard starts to slope. Mr. Hunt's next slide showed the porch enclosure with the patio. He discussed the denial of the wood deck due to the bulk requirements. He also talked about permeable surfaces. Mr. Hunt referenced a picture of the existing walkway that was replaced. It measured approximately six feet by fifteen feet in size and extends to the fence /property line. He discussed the next slide which included another view of the new patio. Mr. Hunt stated that the patio measured approximately fourteen feet by fourteen feet. Mr. Hunt discussed the adjacent neighborhood (Celtic Glen) to the North of Pin Oak Drive. He said the backyard patio at 2011 Celtic Glen was closer to the rear property line than the Petitioner's patio. He also discussed how the lot coverage seemed to be high too. Chairman Rogers said that this may be a problem for the neighboring property, but the Celtic Glen property did not have the same water easement as the Petitioner. Mr. Hunt said that what the Petitioners have done with the patio is nothing new to the neighborhood; they have not altered the character. There was discussion regarding why the original permit was denied. Chairman Rogers discussed how the enclosed porch and patio were within the water easement and the negative effect for the neighborhood. There was general discussion regarding flooding along River Road and the storm water management for the subdivision. Mr. Hunt provided the Petitioner's original title report to the Commission. He referenced a dispute in Schedule B of the report; this is where exceptions, easements, and liens are noted. Mr. Hunt said exception number eight showed an easement for drainage and public utilities of the north ten feet of the property. Chairman Rogers stated that the survey clearly showed the 35 foot easement. Mr. Simmons said item eight referred to the public utility easements on the property and item nine from Schedule B referred to the detention basin over, upon, and under the north part of the land that is shown as the Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Rogers said there were problems on the land where the Petitioner's home was built. The Developer gave a lot of exceptions to the rules to make the property work. The special requirements were added to resolve the water detention area. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioner voided out some of the water detention area. Mr. Hunt stated he understood Chairman Rogers concerns regarding storm water management, he believed that this was not the only issue in regards to the Variations. He said that the Commission needed to look at the surrounding neighbors and character. Mr. Hunt said the bulk regulations in the same RI district, if it's considered a non - residential use, jumps to 75% because it would not be a residential use. He stated the Variance for the rear lot line was to diminish it from fifteen to twelve feet. Mr. Hunt stated that a neighbor has a shed all the way to the rear lot line. He believed the patio was an improvement and came at a considerable cost to the Petitioner. Mr. Hunt discussed the standards for granting a Variation. He said the slope was at a more severe rate in the Petitioner's yard as opposed to other properties in the neighborhood. Mr. Hunt stated that the Petitioners did cause the need for a Variation by installing the patio without a permit. He reiterated that his clients would pay the fine and all of the required fees and costs. Mr. Hunt said there was a house a few blocks away on 1820 Cree with a garage in back that was also considered an accessory structure. The garage is approximately five feet off of the rear property line. Chairman Rogers Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 4 of 5 stated that this may be allowed. Mr. Hunt discussed the differences; Code allows five feet for garages and fifteen feet for patios. Chairman Rogers said the difference is that the garage Mr. Hunt referenced was not within a water easement. Mr. Hunt concluded by requesting that the side yard setback be grandfathered in and to decrease the rear yard setback. He stated the porch was not detrimental and injurious; it was consistent with some other properties. He said not one property owner has submitted an objection to the Petitioner's request. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the meeting and brought the discussion back to the board. Chairman Rogers said the lot coverage was beyond the 50% that they normally do not allow, plus the patio is built within the water easement that was granted on the entire subdivision. He does not have an issue with the existing patio to the lot line. The whole new patio is taking up a large part of the water easement. Chairman Rogers stated that Staff could look at the neighboring property that may be within the rear yard setback. Mr. Floros asked if the construction of the patio was completed. Chairman Rogers said the patio was built and completed without a permit. Mr. Hunt confirmed that the patio was complete. Mr. Youngquist said the height of the patio from the grade looked like it would require guardrails because of the drop. He stated that a three foot service walk would be permitted from the property line. Mr. Youngquist said when Mr. Hunt discussed commercial properties having up to 75% coverage; they are required to have detention. He said the residential to commercial comparison was unfair. Mr. Youngquist stated he could not approve the Variations based on the patio. Mr. Youngquist asked for clarification if there was a fence on the property. The fence currently existed along the west property line, but it no longer is in place along the north or east. Mr. Youngquist believed the patio was even more dangerous with the backyard being accessible without a fence and someone potentially injuring themself on the patio; since the patio had no rail guard. Mr. Youngquist made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve: 1. A Variation request to decrease the required side yard setback from six and one half (6.5) feet to zero (0) feet for an accessory structure; 2. A Variation request to decrease the required rear yard setback from fifteen (15) feet to eleven (11) feet for an accessory structure; and 3. A Variation request to increase the lot coverage from forty-five (45) percent to fifty -one (51) percent for the residence located at 2004 Pin Oak Drive, Case No. PZ- 02 -10." UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5 -0. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Roberts made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros, to adjourn at 8:36 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -02 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 Page 5 of 5 MAYOR Mount Prospect 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 Ir iiir Fax: 847/392 -6022 Steven S. Polit www.mountprospect.org 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, MAY 27, 2010 HAS BEEN CANCELLED