Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/2005 P&Z minutes 49-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-49-04 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7 N. Main Street PETITIONER: Teresa Licari 4 Red Ridge Circle Barrington, IL 60010-5326 LEGAL NOTICES MAILED: February 9,2005 PIN#: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to consolidate (2) parcels and create a one- lot subdivision/one lot of record MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Irene Chipinski Teresa Licari Mark Watychowicz Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24, 2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-49-04, a request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision into one lot of record. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Main Street, Route 83, between Central Road and Henry Street. It consists of two vacant parcels located between two apartment buildings. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered to the north, west, and south by the B5 district and by the RA Single Family Zoning District to the east. The Petitioner is proposing to consolidate two parcels, which were acquired through a County tax sale, to create a one-lot subdivision. The parcels would be consolidated through the proposed Licari's Consolidation plat. Plat approval includes Planning & Zoning Commission review and a recommendation to the Village Board. The Village Board's decision is final for the proposed plat. Village records indicate that the area north of Central road and south of the single-family residences was rezoned from R1 to R3 in 1960. The site was then rezoned from R3 to R4 a year later and the original subdivision indicates that the development consisted of 5 lots of record. The three existing apartment buildings were Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 2 constructed in the early 1960s. However, the building footprints did not match the lot lines. The Village later rezoned the properties to B5 Central Commercial in the early 1990s. Although the Petitioner did not submit a development plan, Staff had concerns regarding the proposed plat because of the potential impacts of developing the site. Currently, there is not enough parking for the tenants and developing an open area would intensify the situation. Each building has 12 units, creating a total of 36 units, and each building has 12 assigned parking spaces. However, it appears that some vehicles parallel park along the east lot line. The Village Attorney researched the title information and found that the Subject Property, the two parcels the Petitioner is seeking to consolidate, was created through a tax division. A tax division is a petition processed through the Cook County Assessor's Office whereby a property owner parcels off a portion of their land for tax purposes. A separate tax bill and PIN# are created. In this case, the Village was first made aware of this situation when the Petitioner contacted Village Staff to determine whether the property could be developed. The Village Attorney determined that the Subject Property was created without the benefit of a subdivision and Village review. In addition, he determined that the Village couldn't prevent the Applicant from seeking approval of the proposed Licari's Consolidation. However, future development of the site must comply with all Village Codes. The Petitioner could request relief, which would require going through the zoning process and obtaining Village Board approval. Currently, the Subject Property is undeveloped, but it includes an ingress/egress easement along the rear 30' of the property. The easement provides ingress/egress rights between the apartment properties over the eastern 30' of each property. The Petitioner has not submitted development plans for Staff review, but has indicated that the property would be sold to another party for redevelopment. The proposed development would have to incorporate the easement requirements and comply with all Village regulations. The Subject Property is zoned B5. The table in the Staff Report lists the bulk regulations for the B5 District. It is important to note that the item being reviewed is the plat that consolidates the parcels and creates a one-lot subdivision. The development of the site is a separate issue. If the proposed development does not comply with Village regulations or requires Conditional Use approval, the P& Z, and most likely Village Board, would review the request and make a decision in response to the development. The Subdivision Ordinance includes standards for approving a subdivision, which relate to the physical development of a subdivision. The regulations provide requirements for the development of the block, length, width, etc. and the development of the lot, size, depth, shape, etc. Staff reviewed the proposed plat and found that it had been prepared in accordance with the Village Code. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the plat for 7 N. Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked if there were 5' utility easements on the north and south ends of the plat; Ms. Connolly replied yes. Ms. Juracek asked if they could build up to the easements without providing setbacks. Ms. Connolly said yes, but they would need to provide parking. She explained that in the B-5 district they would need Conditional Use approval for a residential only development and would have to provide parking to ensure proper development. Joe Donnelly asked if the existing parking spaces belong to the existing apartment buildings and was told they did. Richard Rogers asked what was a permissible use for B-5. Ms. Connolly said retail on the first floor and apartments above; the existing buildings are non-conforming. Teresa Licari was sworn in and testified that she purchased the property at a Cook County Tax Sale and received a Tax Deed approximately one year ago, placed a for sale sign on the property, and then there were signs placed on the rear of the property that the parking area belongs to someone else. She said she is trying to create a one-lot subdivision to make the property buildable. Mr. Donnelly asked what lots she wants to combine; she said she purchased a pin # that is listed as a lot for tax purposes but not for building purposes. Irene Chipinski, 5619 N. Campbell, Chicago, was sworn in and stated that her family owned the apartment building just north of the Licari property, 9-11 North Main. She reported that there is currently a parking shortage; they have 11 assigned parking spaces for 12 units, there is space for 4 non-assigned cars to park. There have been recent problems with a residential neighbor to the north and have had to restrict parking on the north side of the lot due to those complaints. She said she knows the other buildings have assigned parking spaces, but Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 3 also experience a parking shortage. There is a lot of traffic cutting through the lot trying to avoid the traffic lights. She had come to the meeting tonight and waited two hours to speak to the Commission to make them aware of the parking deficiency at this property. Discussion ensued between the Board members and Ms. Connolly regarding the lack of parking spaces and the future development of this site requiring more parking spaces in addition to displacing some of the existing spaces. Ms. Chipinski reminded the group that the additional garbage dumpsters would also take up additional parking spaces. Mark Watychowicz, 301 S. WaPella, an attorney for 5 N. Main Street, was sworn in. He said he wanted to stress that the reason for this request for Subdivision is actually a prelude for a request to build something at the location. And to build anything, even to pitch a tent and add one more car to the area will cause a major problem. There are three buildings, all built by the same builder. To build another building between those will cause an eyesore - across the street from another eyesore - an undesirable existing shopping center in need of redevelopment. Anyone entering or leaving the downtown area sees this eyesore. There are only half of the parking spaces now required by Code for the present development; to add another building will more than double the problem. All the overflow parking will fall into the downtown area, which is already overcrowded. He also questioned whether the petitioner had the proper standing to bring this request before the Board. To that end, Mr. Watychowicz gave his interpretation of his review of the file of the transcripts of the tax sale: He said, "The petitioner visited the property and testified to the judge, under oath, that the property was not being used for any purpose. But it should be clear to all here tonight that the property is being used for parking spaces. I believe if the petitioner had properly advised the judge in the tax court that the property was being used for parking the judge would have required that notice be provided to all the people who would be affected by the tax sale, and that would have included my client, and as a result my client's interest in the property hasn't been properly adjudicated. So for that reason, I would petition that the Board either deny this request or, at the very least, continue the case to allow my firm more time to further analyze the tax case and file any appropriate pleading which would probably affect petitioner's ability to do anything with this land." Ms. Juracek said she is having a difficult time understanding how the tax sale occurred since it appears it was a portion of Mr. Watychowicz's client's property that was sold and how could that have happened without his knowledge. Mr. Watychowicz's said his client purchased property in 1977 from Mr. Carlson in this condition. He considered buying this property but an attorney told him this property was unbuildable so he did not purchase it. The Village attorney reviewed the case and apparently the property division was done as tax benefit by a previous purchaser. His client has taken care of that property for the past 30 years, cut the grass, paved the area, re-paved, sealed, re- sealed, all at his own expense. Ronald Roberts asked him if his client would have bought the property at the tax sale. Mr. Watychowicz said he would have, but didn't know about the sale. Mr. Roberts asked if his client would still be willing to buy the property. Mr. Watychowicz said absolutely, but not at the price being asked. Mr. Rogers asked Ms. Licari if she would accept a lesser price at this time, given the condition of the property. Ms. Licari returned to the podium and said she had sold the property twice but neither deal materialized because of these problems. She went on to explain that her research had revealed that the Neri family had owned the Licari property, along with Mr. Watychowicz's client, Michael Neri's, property since around 1960. Somewhere in the 1960s, Edwina Neri divided the property in order to save taxes. Charlie Young then bought the property at a tax sale but did nothing with it and it went back into a tax sale and was purchased by Ms. Licari. Edwina Neri subsequently sold the original parcel to Michael Neri. Ms. Licari explained that she noted in the tax sale that a 60x142 vacant site zoned B-5 was available. She calculated 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom units and 1 parking space for each I-bedroom units would require 17 spaces. The property has 337' along the property line and at 20' per car that would be enough space. Ms. Licari said she did not commit any fraud in the tax transaction, the owner of the South building had proper notice of the sale and whoever put up the parking sign put that up after she put up the for sale sign. She had taken pictures at the end oflot line and presented those at the tax sale. She said they would have 50' of buildable space Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 4 so there should be 55 parking spaces according to her calculations. She also said one prospective buyer was considering underground parking. Ms. Juracek said the problem to consider today is does the petitioner have a legal right to consolidate. Ms. Connolly said the Village Attorney reviewed it and said the property owner has the right to consolidate even if the county didn't notify the Village. Ownership has been traced back to 1990, but Staff could not confirm who transferred it for tax purposes and when. Ms. Licari said property can be traced online to 1985 and a title search can trace it back to the 1800s. Ms. Chipinski asked whether it was possible the land was sold without the parking area. Ms. Juracek said more research needs to be done before they can make a recommendation to the Village Board that would be fair to all parties involved. She asked that the Village Attorney clarify the limitations of the recorded easement and clarify whether a formal parking agreement exists and how future parking requirements would be regulated. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue the request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision/one lot of record at 7 North Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Case was continued to the March 24,2005 P&Z Meeting. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adj ourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:lDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FiIesIOLK2IPZ-49-04 7 N. Main St. Licari Subdivision.doc