Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2011 P&Z Minutes 21-11MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -21 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: August 25, 2011 200 N. Prospect Manor Czeslaw Zdziech August 10, 2011 03 -34 -309- 022 -0000 Variation to Side Yard Setback Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate William Beattie Theo Foggy Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Czeslaw Zdziech, David Kulikowski Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 5 -0 Nvith Ms. Hinaber abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 21 -11, 200 N. Prospect Manor at 7:35 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -21 -11 requested a Variation to the required setbacks for the property located at 200 N. Prospect Manor. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Prospect Manor and Thayer Street. The property currently contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residential and is bordered by the RA District on all sides. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner obtained a permit and constructed a second floor addition and attached garage in 2008. Subsequently, the Petitioner constructed a Nvood deck in the interior side yard Nvithout permit approval. The Petitioner applied for a permit after the deck Nvas installed, but Nvas denied as the deck encroached into the required five (5) foot interior side yard. The Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to allow the deck to remain as is. Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -21 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2011 Page 1 of 4 RA Single Family District Minimum Requirements Previously (w /o deck) Existing (w/ deck) SETBACKS: Front 30' 29.90' No change Interior Side (N) 5' 5.02' 0' (deck) Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -21 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Exterior Side (S) 20' 17.77' No Change Rear 25' 35.75' No Change LOT COVERAGE 50% Maximum 36% 38% Ms. Andrade said the table compared the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulls requirements. The principal structure did not meet the required front or exterior side yard setbacks provided in the ordinance. The principal structure is setback twenty -nine (29) feet and eleven (11) inches from the front property line and seventeen (17) feet and nine (9) inches when the Village Code requires thirty (30) feet and twent -,T (20) feet respectively. The deck encroached five (5) feet into the required side yard. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The folloNving 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 Nvelfare, other property*, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner stated in their zoning application that the deck Nvas constructed behind the house to provide a safe place for his daughter to play* because the front yard is not safe enough. Staff appreciated the Petitioner's concern for his child's safety*; there are no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property* that Nvould not exist in other properties. Therefore, the alleged hardship presented in this case is directly* related to the Petitioner's own interest in the property* and not by the Village Code. The Subject Property* allows for the construction of a deck in the rear yard while complyTing with Code requirements. Ms. Andrade said based on the review of the Variation standards; Staff did not believe that the Variation requests comply* Nvith the standards. Staff recommended that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny* the motion presented in the Staff Report. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceeds twenty* -five (25) percent of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Donnelly* asked if the Petitioner could install a concrete patio where the deck currently* existed. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner could not because the patio Nvould be subject to the same setback requirement as the deck. Mr. Youngquist confirmed the twenty* (20) foot exterior side yard setback Nvith Staff. He asked Staff if the Subject Property* use to be a ranch home. Ms. Andrade said the home Nvas a single-story home and the Petitioner obtained a building permit in 2008 to construct a second floor addition and also to attached the garage. Mr. Youngquist asked if there Nvas any zoning relief for the exterior side yard. Ms. Andrade stated that the Village Code allows for a second story* addition to an existing non - conforming building as long as the second story* does not encroach further to the property* line. Mr. Roberts asked the dimensions of the deck. Ms. Andrade said the deck Nvas approximately* nine (9) feet by twenty* (20) feet. Ms. Hinaber asked if pavers Nvould be allowed to the property* line. Ms. Andrade stated that pavers Nvould be considered the same thing as a patio and subject to the same requirements. Mr. Donnelly* asked Staff if the deck Nvas not alloNved, Nvould the Petitioner be required to remove the concrete that is around the deck and goes to the garage that is located Nvithin five (5) feet from the fence. Ms. Andrade Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -21 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2011 Page 2 of 4 said that sideNvalks are alloNved to encroach Nvithin the required setback as long as they are not over three (3) feet in Nvidth. Mr. Roberts asked if the dimensions Nvere knoN -,n for the brick paver sideNvalk that comes off from the deck and goes around the garage. Ms. Andrade stated that it looks like it is three (3) feet, but Staff did not have the exact measurements. Chairman Rogers swore in Czeslaw Zdziech, 200 N. Prospect Manor, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Zdziech stated that he purchased the Subject Property in 2005 and had to remodel the home in 2007. He said all the plans, Nvhich included the deck, Nvere given to the Village at the time of the remodel. Mr. Zdziech said the posts for the deck Nvere installed the same time the foundation Nvas poured for the attached garage. He stated the inspector Nvas frequently at his property and approved all the Nvork. Mr. Zdziech believed there Nvas a hardship due to the size of his lot compared to his neighbors. He discussed the size of the deck and reaffirmed that the installation Nvas revieNved by the Village's Building Inspector. Mr. Zdziech stated that he shortened the length of the garage for the deck. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if the deck Nvas on the original draNvings. Mr. Zdziech stated that when it Nvas close to the final inspection, he Nvas advised by the Building Inspector that he needed to complete a new permit for the deck. There Nvas discussion on when a permit Nvas applied for regarding the deck. Chairman Rogers swore in David Kulikowski, 1646 River Street, Des Plaines, Illinois. Mr. Kulikowski said the second story addition and the garage Nvere completed at the same time the posts Nvere installed for the deck. He stated that Inspection Staff Nvas at the Subject Property throughout the process. Mr. Kulikowski stated that the Petitioner Nvas advised that a permit Nvas needed for the deck when the construction Nvas completed. Chairman Rogers asked if the deck Nvas included on the draNvings for the original permit. Mr. Kulikowski said the deck Nvas submitted at the same time in JuIv 2007. He stated he Nvas not sure if the Petitioner needed to apply for the permit after the July submittal date. Mr. Kulikowski said that if there Nvere any problems Nvith the deck, they Nvould have been addressed at that time. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvere any original draNvings available besides the permit application. The Petitioner did not have the original drawings at the meeting. Mr. DonnelIv asked the Petitioner to show the permit application on the overhead projector. There Nvere technical difficulties Nvith the projector and the application Nvas not able to be seen. Ms. Andrade stated that she believed the original draNvings did not include the deck. Mr. Roberts confirmed that no one from the Village Nvould have signed off on the deck Nvithout a permit. He asked who completed the Nvork on the addition, garage, and deck. The Petitioner did the Nvork himself. There Nvas additional discussion regarding the deck and Nvhat the Building Inspector told the Petitioner. The Petitioner stated via Mr. Kulikowski that he Nvas advised to obtain a permit after the deck Nvas built. Mr. Roberts asked how many times the Building Inspector visited the subject property. Mr. Kulikowski said approximately three (3) times per month. Mr. Kulikowski stated the intent of the deck Nvas not to encroach on the neighboring property, it Nvas to give the Petitioner's daughter an area to play. Chairman Rogers stated that the issue Nvas that the deck lies Nvithin the utility easement. He said there Nvas also separation that is needed between the Subject Property and the neighboring property. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -21 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Rogers discussed how it Nvould be tough for the Commission to approve the request because it Nvould create a precedent. Mr. Youngquist believed that the reason whN- the Petitioner did not push the garage to the back of the home Nvas because he anticipated the deck being placed where it Nvas. He stated that the garage is shallow and Nvould have not recommended that as an architect. There Nvas discussion on the potential of connecting the sidewalk Nvith the patio. Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:01 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. There Nvas discussion that one (1) letter Nvas received in opposition of the deck; it Nvas received from a resident on Fairview Avenue. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros, to approve a Variation request to decrease the required side yard setback from five (5) feet to zero (0) feet for the residence located at 200 N. Prospect Manor, Case No. PZ- 21 -11. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Roberts, Youngquist NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Rogers Motion Nvas denied 4 -2. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. After hearing t�vo (2) additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Roberts to adjourn at 9:47 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Rvan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -21 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2011 Page 4 of 4