Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2014 P&Z Minutes 11-14 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO.PZ-11-14 Hearing Date: May 22, 2014 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1412 Boro Lane PETITIONER: William Tesnow PUBLICATION DATE: May 7, 2014 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-205-004-0000 REQUEST: Variation-Overall Lot Coverage MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly,Chair Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Agostino Filippone MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: William Tesnow and Phyllis Tesnow Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:37 pm. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mizwicki to approve the minutes of the April 24th, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 5-0 with two Commissioners abstaining.After hearing two(2)additional cases Chairman Donnelly introduced case PZ-11-14, 1412 Boro Lane. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner for PZ-11-14 is seeking a Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty three(53)percent for the property located at 1412 Boro Lane. Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Boro Lane and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residential and is bordered on all sides by the R1 district. Ms. Andrade stated that the subject property does not comply with all of the village's zoning regulations because of the number of garages, the overall lot coverage, and the detached garage side yard setback. The Subject Property consists of two garages when a maximum of one is permitted, consists of fifty four (54)percent lot coverage when the maximum permitted is forty five(45)percent, and includes a detached garage that encroaches into the required side yard at the northeast corner. The garage is setback four and nine tenths(4.9)feet when a minimum of five(5)feet is required. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22,2014 Meeting 1 Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-11-14 Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner wants to convert the attached garage into living space and construct a covered porch. Ms. Andrade explained the site plan illustrates that a portion of the existing driveway and front walk would be removed and replaced with the covered porch. Ms.Andrade further stated the Petitioner applied for a building permit to do the work, but the permit was denied as the Subject Property exceeds the maximum permitted lot coverage. The Petitioner's site plan indicates the proposed improvements would also include the removal of sixty (60) square feet of the existing driveway that leads to the primary structure,which would bring the overall lot coverage down to fifty three(53)percent. However, since the overall lot coverage still exceeds the maximum forty-five(45)percent allowed,a Variation is required. Ms. Andrade stated the elevation plans indicate the porch would include a roof and would extend 4' out from the front elevation. Ms. Andrade showed the following table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. RI Single Family District Existing Proposed Requirements Setbacks: Front(east) Min. 30' 30.45' No Change Interior Side south Min. 6.5' 12.54' No Change Interior Side north Min. 6.5' 11.68' No Change Rear west Min.25' 68.43' No Change Lot Coverage 45%Max. (4,182.75 sq.ft.) 54%(5,013 sq.ft.) 53% (4,953 sq.ft.) Ms.Andrade summarized the standards for a Variation as the following: • 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 stated the Petitioner indicated the proposed porch would provide protection from rain, snow, and ice; and would be consistent with other homes in the area. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff researched the building permit history for the Subject Property and found record of the following permits: ➢ August 19, 1975: Installation of Air Conditioning unit. ➢ July 5, 1995: Replacement of walk, stoop, garage floor, and patio. ➢ July 14, 1995: Resurfacing of driveway serving attached single-car garage. ➢ July 1, 1999: Construction of a two-car detached garage. ➢ July 13, 1999: Electric ➢ July 20, 1999: Construction of driveway serving the two-car detached garage. ➢ May 1,2000: Fence. ➢ September 7,2000: Replacement of driveway serving the two-car detached garage. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22,2014 Meeting 2 Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-11-14 Ms. Andrade stated that Staff could not locate a building permit for the construction of the home as it was constructed prior to being annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect in 1971 (Ord. #2319). She further explained the 1999 permit for the detached garage included a lot coverage calculation of forty two (42) percent, but was based on a Plat of Survey dated March 1, 1960, which only included the house footprint. It appears the permit was issued in error and at this point the property exceeded the lot coverage permitted by code. The subsequent permits did not include lot coverage calculations but each also utilized the 1960 plat. Ms. Andrade stated, while staff understood the desire to provide a porch, the present nonconformities do not constitute a physical hardship unique to the parcel for the lot coverage Variation request. The proposed improvements would reduce the overall lot coverage by only sixty(60) square feet;reducing the overall lot coverage from fifty four(54)to fifty three(53)percent,which would still exceed the maximum forty five (45) percent permitted by code. Staff is not supportive of the Variation request. Other impermeable surface areas could be removed in order to bring the property into compliance. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff does not find the request meets the Variation standards and recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty three (53) percent, as shown in the site plan dated 7/23/13 for the residence at 1412 Boro Lane." She explained that the Planning&Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairmen Donnelly swore in William Tesnow & Phyllis Tesnow 1412 Boro Lane Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Tesnow stated that the home is his wife's childhood home which he and his wife have been doing improvements to throughout the years. He gave a brief history of the various projects that have been done to the house over the years. Mr. Tesnow explained that the current porch gets very icy and dangerous in the winter. He explained that his wife is having both of her knees replaced and the unenclosed porch would help against slippery conditions. Mr. Tesnow stated that he has seen some other homes in his neighborhood with similar covered porches. He explained that the 1960 Plat of Survey was the only one he has ever had for the property. He stated he didn't understand why there was a problem with the lot coverage because the concrete patio was added before the property was annexed into the Village of Mount Prospect. Commissioner Beattie suggested narrowing the driveway in order to make up some of the square footage. Mr. Tesnow stated that he is not willing to narrow his driveway because he has a large family and needs the parking spaces, and doesn't want to lose value on his home. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Petitioner discussed back and forth the issue of the lot coverage and what needs to be done in order to approve the current request. Chairman Donnelly stated that if the Petitioner provided the correct information the permit for the two car garage wouldn't have been issued. Mrs. Tesnow stated that the inspector came out and approved the property for the project. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22,2014 Meeting 3 Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-11-14 Chairman Donnelly stated that the inspector only looks at the project and doesn't measure the entire property and calculate lot the coverage; and that the Plat of Survey is used to calculate the lot coverage. Mr. Simmons stated that the permit was issued in error and since the project was permitted and completed without any Variation it is considered legal non-conforming. Mrs. Tesnow stated that it wasn't their fault the permit was issued in error. Chairman Donnelly stated he understood but the Petitioner's Plat of Survey was inaccurate therefore it's now creating the current issue. Chairman Donnelly explained if the Variance was granted to decrease the lot coverage to fifty-three percent (53%) structures can be knocked down and rebuilt to the fifty-three percent (53%). He further explained the Variance can't be revoked if a new owner decides to rebuild. Mrs. Tesnow questioned why bigger homes where able to be built on smaller lots. Mr. Simmons stated that different zoning districts have different requirements. The lot coverage in some zoning districts is as high as fifty percent(50%). Commissioner Youngquist stated that he understood the Petitioner's frustration and agreed that they are at a disadvantage due to the legal non-conforming driveway. Mrs. Tesnow stated that she is handicapped and the proposed overhang will help make it safer to enter and exit her home; she further stated that she is merely replacing existing asphalt with concrete. Commissioner Otteman asked Staff if there was a requirement to have a recent survey in 1999 when the Petitioners applied for the two car garage. Ms. Andrade stated that a survey showing the existing conditions of the property would have been required at the time of getting the permit. Commissioner Otteman stated that the permit to build the two car garage was issued in error and that regardless whether or not the Petitioners were asking for the Variance the property would still be legal non-conforming with a lot coverage exceeding the forty-five percent(45%)allowed. There was general discussion between the board and Petitioner regarding the Petitioner's need for the Variance. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any other residents to discuss the matter. Chairman Donnelly swore in Ewald Peliwan,the Petitioner's next door neighbor 1414 Boro Lane. The neighbor stated that he is happy with the improvements the Petitioner has done over the years and has helped the increased the value of the neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner if they would like to try and work with Staff to decrease the lot coverage or to take a vote. Mr. Tesnow asked to take a vote. Chairman Donnelly asked the board if they had any more comments, hearing none, Commissioner Youngquist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve the following motion: Planning and Zoning Commission May 22,2014 Meeting 4 Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-11-14 "To approve a Variation to allow an overall lot coverage of fifty three (53) percent, as shown in the site plan dated 7/23/13 for the residence at 1412 Boro Lane." UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Youngquist, Kueter,Mizwicki,Otteman, Fitzgerald NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly The motion was approved 5-2. This case was Planning and Zoning Commission final. Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 Meeting 5 Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-11-14