Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2002 P & Z minutes 32-01MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. ZBA-32-01 PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: January 24, 2002 Douglas Doughty October 10, 2001 (case continued from October 25, 2001 meeting) Variations to decrease the minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 240 s.f., and locate a shed in an easement Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros ' Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Mas6, Long Range Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Douglas Doughty Reno Neckele Marshall Ponzi David Schein Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p;m. Ms. Juraeek welcomed everyone to the first meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission that is comprised of the former Zoning Board of Appeals and the Plan Commission. She introduced new members Joseph Donnelly and former Plan Commissioner, Matthew Sledz. At 7:33, Ms. Jumeek introduced Case No. ZBA-32-01, a request for Variations for the size and the location ora shed and to decrease the minimum setback for a shed. She said that the ease is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connplly reminded the Planning and Zoning Commission that this case was continued from the last meeting, in October, and that the petitioners had constructed a 240 s.f. shed 1.5'-from the south lot line, in an 8' wide utility easement, and then obtained a building permit. Ms. Connolly said the homeowners were informed that the size of the shed and its location did not comply with zoning regulations and that the petitioners are seeking variations to allow the existing shed to remain in its current location. Since the last meeting, the petitioners have not modified the location of the shed, but they have received sign-offs frOm utility companies to have the shed remain in its current location. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Village does not have any public sanitary sewers or water mains in this easement. However, the Village Code prohibits the construction of any structure within an easement. Ms. Connolly noted that, in order to approve the variation, the Village Code requires that findings of fact be made in accordance with the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. These standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not applicable to other properties; the situation was 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. Connolly explained that a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance is "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of the unusual surroundings or conditions of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground Planning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson ZBA-32-2001 Page 2 conditions or other unusual circumstances." Ms. Connolly said that the subject parcel is typical of lots in the RX zoning district and that the shape and topography are typical of other lots in the Village. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioners' justifications for the variations are the aesthetic impact of the shed on the neighborhood and the convenience of having a larger storage shed. In order to minimize the impact of the 240 s.f. shed, the petitioners located the structure approximately 1' from the south property line, which is in an easement. While the utility companies have approved the location, the location conflicts with Village Code and the size of the shed is twice the size allowed by code. She said that staff prepared an exhibit to show that a 120 s.f. shed could be located on the petitioners' property acdqrding to code and that a variation could be avoided. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character. However, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a shed that complies with zoning regulations could be constructed. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend denial of the proposed Variations to permit a 240 s.f. shed to be !dcated in an easement for the residence at 1431 Blackhawk, Case No. ZBA-32-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Douglas Doughty came forward to speak and Ms. Juracek reminded him he had been swom-in at the last Zoning Board meeting and was still under oath. Mr. Doughty asked Ms. Juracek if the new members WOuld vote on this case and she said they would. Mr. Doughty reiterated his testimony from the Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Doughty explained that they had obtained waivers from the various utility companies stating they had no lines in the easement and JULIE marked the underground tee that supplied gas to their pool heater. He reminded the commissioners that the drainage issue had been disproved by .many of his neighbors who testified at the last meeting that water did not settle in the easement. Mr. Doughty said relocating the shed was not acceptable to him or his neighbors because the shed would then be visible and alter the character of the neighborhood. He also pointed out that the suggested location of the 120 square foot shed would put the shed next to the pool fence and that could create an opportunity for neighborhood youths to dive from the roof of the shed into the pool. Mr. Doughty called attention to the packet he prepared for tonight's meeting. The packet contained a letter from a neighbor at 617 Glendale, Char Suckow, who said she had no objection to the shed remaining in its location and found the shed to be aesthetically pleasing. In addition, Mr. Doughty explained that he had examined the files i-n the Planning Division for approved variation cases. He said that copies of the cases that support his request were in the packet. He reviewed the cases: Case #1: ZBA-05-01, a request for a Varigtion to allow a shed to remain in a sideyard setback after the homeowners located the'shed 1.5-feet into the required time-foot setback that was noted on their permit application. He said the Zoning Board had commented there was no negative impact on the character of the neighborhood and he felt this case was similar to their case. Case #2: ZBA-18-01, a request for an interior side yard setback variation to erect an addition to the house. The staffmemo recommended approval because the size, setback, and lay-out of the house with respect to the property were thought to constitute a hardship. Mr. Doughty stated that his house is a comer lot and that was unique and a hardship. Case #3: No. 7-Z-96, an easement issue was raised for a 3-car garage. The request was approved because the lot coverage was under the minimum requirement. Mr. Doughty pointed out that his lot coverage complied with zoning regulations. Case #4: No. 13-V-1983 approved a request for a three-car garage. The variation was approved eighteen years ago and indicates a long record of Variations approved for size issues. Mr. Doughty reminded the group that he had received the waivers from the utilities and contacted JULIE as had been requested at the last meeting. He asked that his variation requests be approved, based on the other cases cited. lanning and Zoning Commission : h-lene Juraeek, Chairperson ZBA-32-2001 Page 3 Chair Arlene Juracek told Mr. Doughty that he is asking them to approve a shed that is twice the size allowed and that none of the cases he cited had included all three criteria presented by his case· She said that each case is decided on a case-by-case basis. Planning and Zoning Commissioners told Mr. Doughty that they appreciated the time he spent researching previous zoning cases. However, it was unfortunate that he did not research the Village's shed regulations before he constructed the shed· Instead, he built the shed without a permit and is now seeking ~rnedy fi.om the Planning and Zoning Corranission. · Joseph Donnelley pointed out that the permit application the Doughtys completed at,er the shed was constructed shows that the permit is to repair, not replace, an existing shed. In addition, the maximum size, 10'x12', is noted on the application· Mr. Doughty acknowledged he had made a mistake in building the shed that he purchased at a county fair without obtaining a permit, but he asked that he still be granted a Variation. At 8:05, noting that no audience members wanted to address the group, Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing. Richard Rogers moved to approve the Variations to decrease the -minimum setback for a shed, increase the size of a shed from 120 s.f. to 240 s.f., and to locate a shed in an easement as requested by Case No. ZBA-32-01. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Youngquist, Rogers and Juracek ABSTENTIONS: Sledz · Motion was denied 5-1, with one abstention. At 10:05 p.m., after the Planning and Zoning Commission heard three more cases, the Commission reviewed meeting procedures. Merrill Cotten made motion to commence P&Z Commission meetings at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 7-0. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Chairperson Juracek announced it was necessary to elect a Vice-Chair to the Commission. Keith Youngquist nominated Richard Rogers, Merrill Cotten seconded the nomination. There were noaSJ, rther nominations. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floras,, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Rogers Motion was approved 6-0, with one abstention. As there were no other "housekeeping" items to be discussed, at 10:05 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiate~, Planning Secretary /t~d~O6nfio~lly, Senior Planner