Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 6/21/05 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday June 23, 2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MAY 26, 2005 P&Z MEETING . PZ-13-05 /416 & 418 S. Maple Street / Kelly's Mount Prospect Subdivision . PZ-15-05/ 1002 S. Busse Road / CVS Pharmacy . PZ-16-05/ 1712 W. Lincoln Street! Dojutrek Residence . PZ-17-05 / 548 Ida Court / Judy Altobelli III. OLD BUSINESS NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-18-05 / 1100 S. Linneman Road / St. John Lutheran Church / Variations. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. CONTINUED TO JULY 28, 2005 at the Petitioner's request. B. PZ-20-05 /616 Oriole Lane / Matters Residence / Variation (Porch). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. C. PZ-21-05 / 1016 Meadow Lane / Wozniak Residence / Conditional Use (Circular Driveway). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-1O-05 / St. Paul Lutheran Church: Village Board approved 6/7/05 · PZ-11-05 / Mitroff Group: Postponed to July 19 Village Board Meeting per Petitioner's request · PZ-13-05 /416 & 418 S. Maple Street Subdivision: Village Board approved 6/7/05 · PZ-15-05 / 1002 S. Busse Road: Petitioner appealed to Village Board; VB approved a 3rd freestanding sign 6/7/05; request will go back to P&Z July28th for Special Use approval for the electronic message board sign. · PZ-17-05 / 548 Ida Court / Judy Altobelli / Variation: Village Board approved 6/7/05 VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328,TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-05 Hearing Date: May 26, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 416 & 418 S. Maple Street PETITIONER/OWNER: Stratford Custom Homes / Sean Kelly PUBLICATION DATE: May 11,2005 PIN#: 08-12-304-027 -0000, 08-12-304-028-0000, and 08-12-304-032-0000 REQUEST: Resubdivision (Consolidate two lots and a parcel to create a two-lot subdivision) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo F1oros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Ledo Bertolozzi Sean Kelly Shirley Maus Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Younquist moved to approve the minutes of the March 10,2005 Workshop Meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with an abstention by Leo Floras. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. Chair Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-13-05, a request to submit a Plat of Resubdivision to create a two-lot subdivision. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Maple Street, between Lincoln Street and Sha Bonee Trail. It consists of two lots of record and a parcel located between a parking lot and a single-family residence. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family and is bordered to the north, south, and west by the RA District and by the CR Conservation Recreation District, Lions Park, to the east. The Petitioner is seeking approval to resubdivide (2) 50'xI57.18' lots of record and a 22'xI57.l8' parcel to create a two-lot subdivision. The proposed lots would each measure Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-05 Page 2 61.02'x157.18' which exceeds the minimum lot size for the RA District. 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. Ms. Connolly said that although the Petitioner purchased the Subject Property from an individual owner, David Mann, it appears that the Subject Property was at one time used as a parking lot for South Community Church, which is across the street. Therefore, Staff required information documenting that that developing the Subject Property would not create a parking deficiency for the Church. As part of this Resubdivision request, the Petitioner submitted facility usage information from the South Community Church. The Church provided information that documents that their on-site parking lot meets their parking needs, but does not comply with the Village's Code requirements. However, the Church complies with the Village's parking requirements when the parking lot across the street from the Church, directlysouthoftheSubject Property and owned by the Church, is included in the parking calculation. Staff was able to confirm that developing the Subject Property would not create a parking deficiency for the existing Church. The Petitioner has submitted plans for two new residences and the plans are under review to confirm they will comply with Village Codes, including but not limited to the RA bulk regulations for setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, and lot coverage. Ms. Connolly stated that the P&Z is only reviewing the subdivision request this evening, and not the plans for the homes. The Village's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map designate the Subject Property as Single- Family Residence. The Petitioner's proposed development is in keeping with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. Other departments reviewed the request and the Fire Department noted that the proposed homes and site would have to be constructed according to the Village's regulations, which include but are not limited to the installation of fire hydrants and fire sprinklers. The Engineering Division had no objections to the Resubdivision and found that the plat had been prepared according to Village Code regulations. In addition, the Petitioner submitted preliminary engineering as part of the Resubdivision request. The Engineering Division reviewed the design and found that the concept would meet Village Code requirements. However, the preliminary plans needed to be modified slightly and the final engineering plans, which will be submitted as part of the Building Permit, must comply with Village Code requirements. The Petitioner seeks to create two lots ofrecord by resubdividing the Subject Property. The plat was prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements, but requires signatures from the utility companies. Staff notified the Petitioner of the required signatures and the Petitioner is in the process of obtaining them. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed Kelly's Mount Prospect Subdivision plat has been prepared in accordance with Village Codes. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the plat for 416 & 418 S. Maple Street, Case No. PZ-13-05. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. The P&Z asked Ms. Connolly whether the South Community Church parishioners would be able to access and use the remaining parking lot still owned by the Church. It was confirmed that the entrance is on Sha Bonee Trail and that the redevelopment would not impact the existing parking lot. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Village's parking regulations and said that a total of 39 parking spaces exist on-site, and that there are 28 parking spaces across the street (accessed from Sha Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-05 Page 3 Bonee Trail) creating a total of 67 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum Village parking requirement for the South Community Church. Commissioners noted that in recent years the lot has been underutilized, it appears that at some time in the past the Church had owned the land in question. Also, pavement has been recently' removed by Stratford Custom Homes. Staff confirmed that site work had been started without the benefit of a permit. However, a Stop Work order was issued and all further construction would be done with a permit, in accordance with Village Code. Chairman Juracek swore in the petitioner, Mr. Sean Michael Kelly of Stratford Homes. Mr. Kelly stated that Ms. Connolly had presented a thorough explanation of the request. He said he forwarded facility usage information from the Church, as required by Staff, to document that the Church would comply with the Village's parking requirements. He said that he is in the process of applying for building permits and has met with the Engineering Department to discuss the storm water detention design. Chairperson Juracek clarified that Mr. Kelly was present to re-subdivide the property and not to apply for any variances. The Petitioner responded that his request is to modify property lines, widening two 50' lots to become two 61' lots. A Commissioner asked what storm water management was required for a 2-lot residential parcel. The Petitioner said that the Village Code requires storm water detention to ensure water is maintained on site and cannot run off to other parcels. The Commissioner noted that a site that was previously all paved would now contain two homes and green space. With no further discussion requested by the Commission, Chairman Juracek moved to close the hearing. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval of the plat for 416 & 418 S. Maple Street, Case No. PZ-13-05. Leo Flores seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None ABSENT: Donnelly, who later arrived at 7:53 PM. Motion was approved 6 to O. After hearing three additionaLcases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:12pm; Joseph Donnelley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adj ourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - CASE NO. PZ-15-05 Hearing Date: May 26, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1002 S. Busse Road PETITIONER: Angela Smith, Site Enhancement Services (Agent for CVSlPharmacy) PROPERTY OWNER: CVS Pharmacy and DiMucci Companies PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 2005 PIN #: 08-15-203-010-0000 REQUEST: Variation for a 3rd freestanding sign and Special Use approval of an electronic message board sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Angela Smith, Site Enhancement Services (Agent for CVS/Pharmacy) Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Younquist moved to approve the minutes of the March 10,2005 Workshop Meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with an abstention by Leo Floros. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. Chairman Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-15-05, 1002 S. Busse Road. She said that CVS Pharmacy is asking for a special use for an electronic message board and that the case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Busse and Golf Roads, and consists of a multi-tenant retail center with the CVS Pharmacy outlot at the northwest corner of the shopping center. The Subject Property is one lot of record, 7.3 acres in size, and is zoned B3 Community Shopping Planned Unit Development. The site currently has two freestanding signs, which are permitted by the Sign Code. The Petitioner has tenant panels on both of the freestanding signs as well as wall signs on the CVS store. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to install a new freestanding sign specific to CVS Pharmacy only and Special Use approval for the proposed freestanding sign to have an electronic message board. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-15-05 Page 2 The Petitioner's exhibits demonstrate that there is significant distance between the two existing signs and the proposed signs, approximately 285' between the proposed sign from the existing sign on Golf Road and about 171' between the proposed sign and the existing sign on Busse Road. The Petitioner's exhibit shows that the overall height of the sign measures 12-feet from grade and that the size of the sign face, including the electronic message board is less than 75 square feet. The base of the sign will be red brick and capped with a standard masonry material. The electronic message board would include three lines of text used to advertise CVS sale items and/or services. In order to approve the Petitioner's request, the P&Z Commission has to find that the proposed freestanding sign meets the criteria for a Variation because the proposal exceeds the maximum number of permitted freestanding signs, which is one per street frontage per lot. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She noted that prior to the CVS development, the Subject Property consisted of a 2-10t subdivision. It was resubdivided as part of the CVS project and a one-lot subdivision was created. As a result, the Subject Property has almost 900 linear feet of frontage onto Golf Road. The proposed location is consistent with a sign on a separate lot of record: the proposed sign would be located approximately 285' from the existing sign on Golf Road and approximately 171' from the sign on Busse Road. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's request would not ildverse1y impact the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the request and found that the sign, including the electronic message board, would not adversely impact traffic or endanger the public safety. In order to approve the electronic message board, the P&Z Commission has to find that it meets the standards for a Special Use. Ms. Connolly said that the required findings for Special Use requests are listed in the Sign Code and then she summarized the standards. She said that the Subject Property has expansive frontage onto Golf and Busse Roads and the size of the sign complies with Sign Code regulations. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the electronic message board would not adversely impact traffic. In addition, Staff found that the design of the proposed sign would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. However, the Petitioner has tenant panels on the existing freestanding signs; Staff recommends that the tenant panels on the existing signs be removed if this sign is approved. Based on this analysis, the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation and Special Use because the site has expansive frontage onto two major arterial roads and the proposed sign would be located a significant distance from the existing signs. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the proposed Variation and Special Use to permit an electronic message board for the CVS freestanding sign subject to the following conditions: 1. Remove the existing CVS tenant panels from both of the existing freestanding signs; and that 2. The proposed sign shall comply with the standards, which are related to the message board not being a traffic hazard and not being a nuisance. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. The Commission confirmed with Ms. Connolly that this sign was essentially the same as the sign approved for the CVS by the Randhurst Shopping Center. The P&Z discussed overall sign Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-15-05 Page 3 regulations and noted that the sign code allows wall signs that measure up to 50% of the signable area up to 150 s.f. and that CVS does not exceed that limitation. Also, the Sign Code permits 75 s.f. of sign face on a freestanding monument sign and the tenant panels on the two existing signs are probably about 10 s.f. Richard Rogers recalled that this shopping center, Golf Plaza I, was one of the last to conform to the sign code in terms of 24' high signs and that this center was limited to 2 freestanding signs for various reasons. He said he does not believe the Commission should allow 3 freestanding signs because it will set a precedent and other shopping centers will request Variations for additional freestanding signs. He stated that he has concerns regarding the safety of an electronic sign at a main intersection despite the Village's Traffic Engineer stating the sign would not create a conflict. Keith Youngquist asked what would go on the two freestanding signs if the CVS panels were removed. Ms. Connolly indicated another tenant name would be placed on the sign. She said there are more than 6 tenants in the center, but only 6 panels are allowed, per the Sign Code, on each sign. Chairperson Juracek swore in the petitioner, Ms. Angela Smith of Site Enhancement Services, an authorized agent for CVS Pharmacy. She is located at 3699 W. Lathrop in South Bend, Indiana, 46628. Ms. Smith said she would start with the Special Use request first because it has led them to seeking a Variation. She said representatives for CVS have appeared before the Village to obtain approval to install electronic message boards at stores across the country. CVS research has found significant performance improvement for the stores that have the electronic message board. She said that CVS is identifying creative ways to use the signs in addition to promoting store products. For example, tying the signs into the Amber Alert system so that they become a community asset as well as an asset for the store. Ms. Smith said that they feel they would be doing the Village a disservice and would create confusion if they requested Special Use approval to include the electronic message board on the existing freestanding signs. In this instance, designing a sign to incorporate with what was already there was beyond their ability because there are so many tenants in the center. So, they lqoked to what they could do to create a sign exclusively for CVS Pharmacy. Short of re- subdividing the property, the suggestion was to incorporate a sign that would function as if there were two lots. As noted, the property was originally two lots. Ms. Smith stated that the proposed sign would be a static sign that would function similarly to the way an alarm clock functions, so it is an instantaneous change. She believes that they agreed at their other store that the message would change every 15 minutes. The sign would not scroll, blink, or otherwise call attention. Ms. Smith confirmed that an electronic message board sign had been approved but not yet installed for the CVS store at Elmhurst and .Rand Roads. There was discussion regarding subdividing the property and how ingress-egress easements would be necessary. Ms. Smith replied it would be very complicated, as CVS did not own the property. Also, meeting parking requirements, the needs of the many tenants, creation of a new lot, creation of a new lease, renegotiation of cross access agreements at shared drives, and shared services, which they do not have to negotiate out as one lot, need to be considered. Ms. Smith stated CVS would like to utilize amber colored LED lights, but they would use the color the P&Z requires. She said that CVS has found that white LED creates glare and believes Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-15-05 Page 4 that amber LED is the most legible. She noted that they believe further landscaping would be needed at the base of the sign and provided an exhibit showing the change to the landscaping plan at the comer. She added that the wall signs only stay on when the store is open and the freestanding sign would be single color with a single message. Chairperson Juracek noted there were no interested parties in the audience. Joseph Donnelly confirmed that there is no provision in the code for a message change every 15 minutes and that the Commission could request color preference as well as night and day settings. Ms. Smith said she has never been asked for different light settings between day and night but that the sign would be oflatest technology so she thinks they would be able to adjust intensity of the sign. The Commission discussed alternative locations for the sign, which would increase the ability for it to be read at all four legs of the intersection and not create traffic conflicts. Ms. Smith stated they believe the 45 degree angle requested woulH allow for visibility from all directions. She referred to the "law of primacy" a study that found a driver would not turn their head around, they would attend to the larger task at hand, driving the vehicle. Ronald Roberts stated it would be great to have a visual, which would show what the sign would look like from each direction. Ms. Smith said they would consider a Commission recommendation for a change to a location perpendicular to Golf Road. Mr. Youngquist asked what the benefit would be for a IS-minute delay on message change. Ms. Smith said that's not what they prefer, but would consider that cycle as that was approved for the other CVS sign. CVS signs typically change every 15-30 seconds; they would open it to the Village's direction and offer a limit comfortable to the Village. Ms. Juracek reminded the Commission that the last sign was denied by the P & Z Commission, but the Petitioner appealed the decision and the Village Board allowed the sign with a IS-minute change cycle. It was noted that the Elmhurst/Rand site was more complicated. The hope is that whatever message might be up at the time is the one that would encourage a viewer to visit the store. The electronic message board technology takes away the problems associated with changeable copy sign such as time to change the message and immediacy of the message. At 3 -lines of text, CVS has found 15 seconds to be sufficient for the message to be understood; longer messages would be left up for 2 intervals of 15 seconds, 30 seconds total. When the message is complex, it is left up longer so that it is understood. Some messages are programmed from a central location, but usually it is programmed locally by a store or regional manager to allow for various municipality requirements. When asked by Ms. Juracek what they would do if this request were denied, Ms. Smith said they would have to go back and work with the property owner to determine whether there was a way to modify the existing sign and meet tenants' needs. The two existing signs were approved for multi-tenants and they were part of the original approval. There was discussion regarding modifying the existing signage and how it may require modifying the original CVS approval and site plan approval. Leo Flores asked if the Village had requested the IS-minute time interval. Ms. Connolly said she would need to review the Village Board minutes, but she thought the IS-minute cycle was part of the appeal request to the Village Board. Mr. Donnelly recalled the Commission's resistance to the sign due to the busy nature of Rand Road and stated he believed the IS-minute cycle was an attempt to respond to the P&Z's concerns. Ms. Smith stated that if that cycle were a condition of approval, they would agree to the Commission's requirement. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-15-05 Page 5 Ms. Smith summarized that an electronic sign would allow them to change the message quickly and more easily than with changeable copy. She said that 15 seconds is consistent with what Whiteway Signs had said at the Commission's special workshop. She said that Staffs recommendation to allow the sign correlates to fact that this is a signalized intersection where traffic does stop. Mr. Donnelly recalled the Commission's determination that one message per screen would be safest so that drivers would not slow down to read a message appearing on multiple screens. He believes these safety concerns are valid. Ms. Smith agreed that the sign should be easily read, messages should not be split, their messages would be are succinct. She further noted that often it is a passenger that reads the message. The Village's Sign Code does allow a message to change every 2 seconds, but if the Commission wishes a different timing it would need to be put in a motion. Mr. Rogers reminded the P&Z that if this sign were approved, they opened up an opportunity for every center to request an additional freestanding sign. Mr. Roberts asked whether Staff enforces timing of electronic signs; Ms. Connolly replied that Staff inspects violations as they are reported. Mr. Donnelly added that the Commission expects to add changes to the Sign Code based upon information discussed at their March 10th Workshop, although the text amendments have not been added yet. Chairperson Juracek stated she is tending to question the need for the 3Td sign as she believes the comer is already very cluttered and a driver would be past the driveways when they would see the sign and make the decision to turn in to the CVS. Mr. Donnelly added that landscaping might block the sign, as the trees are very low there. Mr. Roberts looked at the factors for Special Use noting the amount of pedestrians trying to cross Golf and stated his belief that the sign would not increase public s,afety, and that such a sign would not be in architectural harmony. Ms. Juracek stated they don't object to use of an electronic sign and new technology, but that the larger question for them was whether there should be a third freestanding sign. She asked if there was a way to work within two signs. Staff clarified there are two discussions before the P&Z: a Variation for the 3rd sign and a Special Use to allow an electronic message sign. Ms. Juracek noted it would be appropriate to take two votes. The Commission asked the Petitioner if she would like to table the motion and revise the application to address the concerns of the Commission. She replied that, either way she would have to re-apply with any alterations, so she preferred a vote be taken. It was noted there is a way to put an electronic sign on the building. However, the property is a Planned Unit Development, and that would require discussion regarding signs other than the requested 3rd freestanding sign. With no further discussion requested by the Commission, Chairperson Juracek closes the hearing and asked for a motion. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to recommend approval for a variation for a 3Td freestanding sign and removal of the CVS tenant panels from the existing freestanding signs, Case No. PZ-15-05. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPONROLLCALL: AYES: Donnelly, Youngquist NAYS: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, and Juracek Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-15-05 Page 6 Motion failed 5 to 2. There was not a second vote. Staff recommended that, in order to vote on a Special Use for an electronic sign, more detail is needed. If the Village Board would approve a variation for the third sign, Staff would recommend that the question of an electronic message board would come back to Planning and Zoning to discuss the specific location, technology, and timing of an electronic message sign. After the vote, the Commission held additional conversation regarding the Village's Sign Code. There was discussion that the freestanding sign would be allowed if the CVS were a separate lot of record; the CVS building stands out with its own identity as if it were on an outlot, but this is no longer a viable parcel; the Sign Code seeks to reduce clutter. Ms. Smith was asked why CVS did not request an electronic sign at the time they sought Conditional Use approval for the drive- thru pharmacy and the building was built; she replied that it was cost prohibitive at that time. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:12 PM, seconded by Joseph Donnelley. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-16-05 Hearing Date: May 26, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1712 W. Lincoln PETITIONERS / OWNERS: Randy Dojutrek PUBLICATION DATE: May 11, 2005 PIN#: 08-10-217-029-0000 ,A LOT SIZE: 0.23 acres (10,175 square feet) ZONING: R1 Single-Family Residence REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Randy Dojutrek Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Younquist moved to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2005 Workshop Meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with an abstention by Leo Floros. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. Chairman Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-16-05, a Conditional Use request to construct an unenclosed porch. She said that this case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Lincoln Street, between Hatlen A venue and Crestwood Lane, and contains a one-story single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including a 2-story addition and an unenclosed front porch. The proposed porch would consist of a concrete base and a wood railing. The porch would extend approximately 5' from the house, resulting in a 25' front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-16-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. She said that the existing home complies with the Village's zoning regulations, but the proposed porch will encroach into the required front yard. The standards for a Conditional Use are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be met in order to approve the proposed porch. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that Staff found that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets. Also, the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for the residence at 1712 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-16-05. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Juracek swore in the petitioner, Mr. Randy Dojutrek, owner of 1712 W. Lincoln. Mr. Dojutrek explained his desire to expand the home to meet family needs. He said they arrived at the proposed design after seeing a home on Fairview Avenue that appealed to them. Mr. Dojutrek said he looks forward to a porch to watch people on the bike trail, wait for the school bus, and enjoy the neighborhood. He said he has talked to his neighbors about his project and did not encounter concerns. Joseph Donnelly confirmed with Mr. Dojutrek that he understood the porch must remam unenclosed; Mr. Dojutrek said yes. Richard Rogers commented on the nice job the architect had done with the entire house. Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard, resulting in a setback of no less than 25-feet, for the residence at 1712 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-16-05. Jo~eph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, and Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7 - O. After hearing one more case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:12pm; Joseph Donnelley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-17-05 Hearing Date: May 26, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 548 Ida Court PETITIONER/OWNER: Vincent & Judy Altobelli PUBLICATION DATE: May 11,2005 PIN#: 08-14-404-007 -0000 ZONING: R3 Low-Density (3-Flat Multi-Family Dwelling) LOT SIZE: 0.17 acres (7,720 square feet) REQUESTS: Variations for: 1) Location of Detached Garage, 2) Lot Coverage, and 3) Driveway Width MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Altobelli, Property Owner Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.rn. Keith Younquist moved to approve the minutes of the March 10,2005 Workshop Meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with an abstention by Leo Floros. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion, which was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-17-05, 548 Ida Court, a request to re-build a garage, which requires Variations for the location of the garage, the existing driveway width, and amount of existing lot coverage. She said this case is Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said the Subject Property is located north of Dempster Street, between Linneman Road and Elmhurst Road, and contains a multi- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R3 Low Density Residence and is bordered by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the north and R3 to the east, south, and west. The Subject Property currently has a detached garage that encroaches into the required rear and side yard setbacks. The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage because it was damaged in a fire. The Petitioner's insurance company assessed the garage to be a 'total loss' and authorized payment Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 2 for a new garage. The Petitioner would like to build the new. garage using the existing concrete slab, which is located 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards respectively. However, the location of the existing garage does not meet current zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly explained that the property was developed under Cook County regulations and later annexed into Mount Prospect. Since the entire garage would be demolished, the structure no longer retains its legal nonconforming status and it must be rebuilt according to current zoning regulations, which requires 5' rear and side yards. The insurance company will not pay for a new garage floor; therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation for the proposed location because they want to rebuild the garage using the existing concrete slab. As part of the Staff review, Staff found that the site currently exceeds the 50% lot coverage limitation and the driveway exceeds the maximum width listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Although the size and design of the proposed garage would be the same as the existing 482 sq. ft. garage, the site would have 55% lot coverage. The Zoning Ordinance requires the site to meet current zoning regulations for the location of the garage as well as comply with lot coverage. The site does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because: 1) the 3-flat building encroaches into the required side yard, 2) the site exceeds the 50% lot coverage limitation, 3) the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side and rear yard setbacks, and 4) the driveway width exceeds 26' which is the maximum permitted width. However, the 3-flat building and driveway are legal nonconforming structures and are allowed to remain 'as is' since the Petitioner is not modifying them. Since the Petitioner would demolish the garage and construct a new garage, Village Code requires the project comply with current code requirements for setbacks and the site cannot exceed lot coverage limitations. The table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to current Zoning requirements. Ms. Connolly said that the standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to build the same size garage in the same location as the existing garage. However, the insurance company will not cover the cost of a new garage floor. While Staff can understand the reasoning for the Petitioner's request to rebuild the garage in its current location, the site could be modified to comply with current code requirements. She said that the Building Division confirmed that the garage floor could be modified so it complies with Village Code requirements by saw cutting the portion of the slab that encroaches into the required setbacks. Additional concrete could be added so the footprint of the garage is maintained. In addition, the Petitioner could narrow the driveway so its width complies with zoning regulations and the site would then comply with the 50% lot coverage limitation. Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, the Variations are needed to rebuild a garage damaged in a fire. The site was originally developed under Cook County regulations and the site does not comply with current Village Codes. However, the requested Variations are based on convenience as opposed to a hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Although the requested Variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a detached garage to be built 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 3 and allow a 31' wide driveway and 55% lot coverage to be maintained at 548 Ida Court, Case No. PZ-17-05. The Village Board's decision is final for this case because then~ar setlJ:ic!<i~ m()re than 25% of the code requirements. Richard Rogers asked what percentage of the garage must be destroyed before the garage is considered a total loss. Ms. Connolly replied that the insurance company deemed it a total loss, but clarified that the Village Code states that less than 50%must be in n~ed ofrebllil4ing for the structure to retain it's legal nonconforming status. Ms. Connolly said that, although from the pictures the garage appears to have less than 50% needing to be rebuilt, the Petitioner looked into the viability of rebuilding the original structure. Joseph Donnelly clarified that only the garage setbacks are under review, not the non-conforming status of the driveway. Ms. Connolly replied that as a result of the garage request, the Village Code requires a new structure to comply with lot coverage limitations as well as the setbacks. She n()ted that avaria!i011 \v()1.l1d 111n \Vjththel:ind. There was discussion regarding on-site parking for tenants. P&Z members .commented thattl1e 'extra' driveway width was necessary because Ida Court has parking restrictions and tenants needed to park on-site. It was determined the Village Code would require seven parking spaces for the development if it were built today. Chairman Juracek swore in the Petitioner, Judy Altobelli, owner of 548 Ida Court. Judy Altobelli explained there had been a fire and that the wh,olefront a;1J,g one ~h()I,~~i4~ (}ftl1e garage was damaged. She said that the rafters are charred, one wall has a broken window, but the back wall is stable. Her garage contractor could rebuild at the same cost,as a new garage as there is more work involved. She said she wasn't aware that the garage did not meet current code requirements and that it was a non-conforming structure. She asked about the parking requirements. Chairperson Juracek replied that the P&Z Commission was considering if the property could provide 7 parking spaces on-site and still comply with setback requirements, which could be a rationale for approving the Variations. Ms. Altobelli said a new garage would be a better situation, and that she does not wantto repair the garage for the same cost. She said that she already has the insurance check and would like to rebuild. ~he talked JO"two garage companies, who said the estimate to replace the cement floor was $7-9,000. Mr. Rogers noted that her alternatives seem to be a repair job, or moving the garage for a rebuild, due to the pre-existing conditions. He said if the request is denied, she will most likely repair the existing garage and the non-conforming conditions remain. However, the structure will not be as uniform as a new construction garage. He noted that if a Variation is approved, a 3-car garage could not be built due to lot coverage limitations. He said that lot coverage could change if the driveway was narrowed, but the 5 cars owned by the tenants are parked on the sides of the driveway. Deputy Director Ellen Divita asked the Petitioner to clarify who parks in the garage if the tenants are all on the drive. Ms. Altobelli said she had been renting the garage to a landscaper who lives in the neighborhood and keeps his trucks in a garage. Ms. Juracek added that Lois McMichael, 547 Ida Court called the Community Development Department to voice support for the project. Ms. Divita noted that the project would qualify for a Minor Variation, except for the rear setback. She recited the Village Code regarding Minor Variations and stated that a Minor Variation could Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-17-05 Page 4 be allowed except for 7 inches in the rear yard setback. Therefore, the final decision is based on piecemealing and rebuilding vs. construction of a new garage. She said that other components from Village Code requirements are applicable to the situation: 1) the situation was in effect when the property was annexed; 2) The owner has not changed the property in some way so as to create the nonconformity; 3) The requested relief is not out of character with the neighborhood. The Commission asked whether the garage could be rebuilt 7 inches shorter. There was discussion that the proposed 21-foot depth could not be reduced any further without limiting the ability to park vehicles in the garage. Ms. Juracek stated that the Subject Property mirrors other conditions on the block, the Subject Property backs up to a park, Staff could not confirm there were drainage issues, the request is the result of pre-existing from the County, and the Petitioner did not create the situation. The Commission also confirmed that the request is only to rebuild the garage, and that other property improvements would still be subject to correcting applicable non-conforming code issues. Ms. Juracek asked for further discussion; as there was none, she closed the Public Hearing. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend approval for Variations to permit a detached garage specific to the current footprint to be built, 3.41' and 4.51' from the rear and side yards, and allo,w a 31' wide driveway and 55% lot coverage to be maintained at 548 Ida Court, Case No. PZ-17- 05, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, and Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 6 - 1. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9: 12pm; Joseph Donnelley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Mount Prospect ~ Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 23, 2005 HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND RESCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005, 6:00 PM AT VILLAGE HALL 50 SOUTH EMERSON STREET COMMUNITY CENTER Phone: (847) 392-6000 Fax: (847) 818-5336 TDD: (847) 392-6064