Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2015 P&Z Minutes 37-14 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-37-14 Hearing Date: January 22, 2015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A PETITIONER :Richard Muhlbacher PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2015 PIN NUMBER: 08-22-200-170-0000 REQUESTS: 1)Variation to allow a 15’ Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad 2)Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage 3) Variation to allow a 45.70% Lot Coverage in the Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Agostino Filippone MEMBERS ABSENT:,, Joseph DonnellySharon Otteman,Thomas FitzgeraldWilliam Beattie STAFF MEMBERSPRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, SeniorPlanner INTERESTED PARTIES :Richard Muhlbacher, Jerry Ortiz Vice-ChairmanYoungquist called the meeting to order at 7:35p.m. Commissioner Kuetermade a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13, 2014meeting; Commissioner Mizwickiseconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist introduced Case PZ-37-14,3015 Lynn Court, Aat 7:37 p.m. Ms. Andrade statedthe Petitioner for case number PZ-36-14 was seeking Variations to the front yard setback and lot coverage for the property located at 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A. Ms.Andrade explainedthe Subject Property is located on the east side of Lynn Court and contains an attached single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered to the west, north, and east by the R1 district, and multi-family residential in unincorporated Cook County to the south. Ms. Andrade stated the Plat of Survey indicatesthe existing improvements located on the Subject Property include a townhome, brick patio and a storage shed. The Lynn Court public right-of-way consists of a stone/gravel area that has been used for two parking spaces. Ms. Andrade statedthe Petitioner intends to remove the gravel areaparking pad located in the public right-of-way and construct a two-car parking pad in the front yardat the northwest corner of the building. The parking pad would be paved with either concrete or asphalt and measure eighteen feet (18’) wide by eighteen feet (18’) deep. The petitioner is seeking approval of a variation to allow a fifteen foot (15’) front yard setback, as measured from the southwest corner of the parking pad,when the Village Code requires a minimum thirty foot (30’)setbackand seeking Variations to the lot coverage to allow a 45.70% lot coverage in the front yard and a 63.43% overall lot coverage when the Village Code allows up to forty-five percent (45%) of impervious surface in the front yard and on the overallproperty. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 1of 4 Ms. Andrade showed a table comparingthe Subject Property to the R1 Single Family Residence District’s bulk requirements. Ms. Andrade statedthe Subject Property currently does not comply with all of the Village’s zoning regulations. The Subject Property is not a legal lot of record and the overall lot coverage measures approximately fifty-three percent (53%) of the lot area when a maximum of 45% is permitted. Ms. Andrade stated there was no history of variation approval. 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, per the Petitioner, the gravel area located in the Lynn Court right-of-way has been in existence since the 1970’s and has provided two parking spaces for the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade explained the townhome development does not provide the required parking. However, the Subject Property’s lack of off- street parking does not constitute a physical hardship unique to this property. Other multi-family dwellings in the Village do not provide the required number of parking. Ms. Andrade furtherexplainedthe proposed improvement would increase the extent of the existing nonconforming overall lot coverage and create an additional nonconformity. The proposed improvement would make the overall lot coverage exceed Code by more than eighteen percent (18%) and make the lot coverage in the front yard non-conforming. Ms. Andrade stated Staff reviewedthe Variation requests and did not find the requests meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff’s findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend denial of the following motions: 1.Variation to allow a 15’ Front Yard Setback for a Parking Pad; 2.Variation to allow a 63.43% Overall Lot Coverage; and 3.Variation to allow a 45.70%Lot Coverage in the Front Yard. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Board’s decision is final for the case. Commissioner Mizwicki asked staff if increasing the lot coverage would permit a garage. Mr. Simmons responded that a structure would be subject toconformtothe building setback requirements.A parking setback would allow them to encroach fifteen feet (15’) into the front yard.Approving a lot coverage variation would allow the site to have more impervious surface on the property. If the petitionerwere to redevelop the property sometime in the future, they could potentially add another structure that conformsto the building requirements that add up to the lot coverageproposed. Commissioner Mizwicki asked where the other townhomes parktheir vehicles. Ms. Andrade responded the other townhomes park in the rearof the property. Commissioner Filippone asked about the Village’s ordinance regarding gravel. Ms.Andraderesponded that the Village Ordinance requires all gravel to be removed and paved. Mr. Simmons statedthe Ordinance was passed over ten years ago to bring all properties into compliance by removing all gravel driveways and parking lots. st There was an amortization period that was in the Ordinance that came due January 1 of this year. Village Staff has been contacting all the properties that are in the Village that still havegravel surface areas and notifying them they need to comply with the requirements. In this case, the gravel is located in the public right-of-way. Mr. Simmons further stated the Village typically would notpermita development to utilize the right-of-way for its required parking. The Petitioner is seeking the Variations to provide twoparking spaces on-site in lieu of losing the existing parking spaceslocated in the Lynn Court right-of-way. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 2of 4 Commissioner Filippone asked if there have been similar requests to allow parking padsin the front yard. Ms. Andrade responded there has been no requestto allow parking pads in the front yard. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed the Subject Property’s land boundaries extend beyond the boundaries of the townhouse itself,which is not typical of most townhome developments. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed thefront yard is not common area and the proposed parking pad would belong to the townhome itself. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist swore in Richard Muhlbacher from 33 Elgin Avenue in Forest Park. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed Mr. Muhlbacher was one of the owners. Mr. Muhlbacherdiscussed the gravel parking area in the right-of-way has been in existence since his mom purchased the home in 1978.Mr. Muhlbacher explained the rear provides five (5) parking spaces. Mr. Muhlbacher further explained that five (5) parking spaces would not be an issue if the five (5) townhome units had one car, but that is not the case; some units have up to three cars. Mr. Muhlbacher explained 3015 Lynn Court, Unit A has always parkedin the gravel parking area located in the right-of-way.Upon receiving the notice to remove the gravel from the Village, he decided to pursue the Variations for a permanent parkingpad in the front yard. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistasked if one parking space versus two would suffice. Mr. Muhlbacher replied one parking space would be sufficientif that would be favorable. There was discussion between the Commissioners and Mr. Muhlbacher regarding the availability of parking spaces on site. Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed there is no homeowner’s associationand that theSubject Property is the only unit consisting of a front yard.Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed the front yard is not common area. There was additional discussionregarding the unusual circumstances, including thelack of a homeowner’s association, parking, and area. CommissionerFilippone asked Mr. Muhlbacher what the hardship was. Mr. Muhlbacherresponded the hardship was the lack of parking on private propertyand unavailability to park in the public right-of-way overnight. CommissionerMizwicki asked if the homes across Lynn Court were single-family homes. Mr. Muhlbacher confirmed. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistconfirmed there was another gravel parking area located south of the Petitioner’s gravel areathat was used by the townhomes located in unincorporated Cook County. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist swore in Jerry Ortiz from Chicago, IL. Mr. Ortiz stated he owns 3015 Lynn Court, Unit D and also owns a home in Lake Briarwood. Mr. Ortiz stated he purchasedhis townhome in 2000and was told each townhome included two parking spacesin the back. The two parking spaces for 3015 Lynn Court, Unit Ahave always been in the Lynn Court public right-of-way.The remainder of the townhomes parkin the rear but the space is very tight. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist confirmed none of the townhomes in the area have garages. CommissionerMizwicki asked if Unit D has one parking space. Mr. Ortiz responded he has two parking spaces and that each townhome owner knows where to park. Mr. Ortiz confirmed there is notenoughspace in the back to provide two parking spaces for each townhome. Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 3of 4 Mr. Simmons stated the townhomes were developed under Cook County regulations and do not comply with the Village’s current parking regulations. Residents have worked out where each can park and maintain access through the area. The two spaces the Petitioner has utilized arein the right-of-way. CommissionerMizwicki asked if the removal of the gravel would have an impact to others. Mr. Mulhbacher responded the removal of his gravel parking pad would not impact anyone since the gravel parking spaces have always belongedto his townhome. Vice-ChairmanYoungquist asked if there was anyone else to speak on the case. Hearing none, he brought the discussion back to the Commission. He indicatedhe was of the opinion to make the Variations happen and stated the Petitioner was aware of the conditions of approval if it moves forward. Mr. Filipponestated he was concerned with the lot coverage and indicated it was a weird situationand could see the hardship.He indicated he was concerned with how much over the lot coverage would be. CommissionerMizwicki asked regarding the size of the gravel area. Mr.Mulhbacherindicated the gravel area was actually bigger than the parking pad he was proposing. CommissionerFilippone asked Mr. Muhlbacher if he was ok with doing a one-car parking pad and complying with the conditions of approval. Mr. Muhlbacher responded that it was not optimal but that if the Variations were approved he would be fine with one parking space. Mr. Muhlbacher indicated his preference was two parking spaces.Mr. Muhlbacher reiterated the need for the parking pad and Variation approvals. Vice-Chairman Youngquistindicated that there was support for one parking space. Vice-ChairmanYoungquistand Commissioner Filippone confirmed their preference was to supportone parking space due to the lot coverage. Mr. Muhlbacher revised the Variation requests to reflect aonecar parking pad versus two. Commissioner Filippone made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kueter to approvethemodified Variations to the front yard setback and lot coverage for aone-car parking padin the front yardsubject tothe conditions listed in the staff report. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Youngquist,Filippone,Kueter NAYS: Mizwicki Motion was approved 3-1. After hearing one additional case,Vice-ChairmanYoungquistmade a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mizwickito adjourn at 8:50p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Consuelo Andrade Senior Planner Joseph Donnelly, ChairPZ-37-14 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2015Page 4of 4