Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/25/2005 P&Z minutes 32-05 1MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-32-05 Hearing Date: August 25, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 90 E. Milburn PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Cheryl Axley, 90 E. Milburn, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: August 10,2005 PIN #: 08-12-120-023-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chairman Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: ChairArlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Cheryl Axley, Stuart Wolf, Riner Warner Acting-Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 8:15 PM Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-32- 05 a request for Variation for Side Yard Setback for 90 E. Milburn. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Senior Planner Judy Connolly summarized the case. The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Emerson and Milburn, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Although the residence is entered and exited along Milburn Avenue, the Zoning Ordinance defines the Milburn. frontage as the exterior yard and the front yard is Emerson Street. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and the existing house is currently set back approximately 15 feet from the south lot line, which is the exterior property line, and approximately 71' from the east lot line, which is the front property lot line. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is in the process of, and actually has completed most of the improvements to the existing patio and driveway. She said the Petitioner’s exhibits illustrate the proposed improvements and the exhibit notes the proposed patio extension. The Petitioner is seeking approval for a 14' x 29’ patio, intended to accommodate a brick fire pit, to encroach into the exterior yard. However, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot exterior side yard setback; therefore the Petitioner is requesting a Variation. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner's application provided an in-depth description of the request as the patio relates to the character of the neighborhood. She said that the narrative states multiple times that the area in question is heavily screened and the proposed encroachment would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Petitioner's narrative also provides an overview of events leading up to the requested Variation. Ms. Connolly said several discrepancies were identified when information in the Petitioner's narrative was compared to information in Village files during the Staff review of the request. In an effort to resolve the discrepancies, Staff met with the Petitioner and her attorney. As a result of this meeting, it appears there was a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the work approved for the permit issued in June 2005. Although the permit information indicates a 20’ setback is required along Milburn Ave., this requirement was not explained in a manner that was made clear to the Petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner started excavation in the required exterior side yard. The Petitioner applied for a Variation when she was made aware that the proposed project did not meet the zoning regulations and that the permit issued did not authorize work in the exterior side yard. However, the discrepancies and amount of work completed, whether or not it was authorized, are not standards, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, to grant a Variation. Therefore, the Staff Report will not focus on this aspect of the Petitioner's request and will instead just address the Variation request itself. Ms. Connolly said that the existing home does not comply with the Village’s zoning regulations because the house encroaches approximately 5-feet into the exterior setback. However, this situation is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. The proposed patio in the exterior side yard is new construction and is required to meet current Village Code requirements. Therefore, the patio requires relief from the RA District’s bulk regulations to allow a 6' exterior side yard setback when the Zoning Ordinance requires 20'. 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. They relate to: ?? 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. The Petitioner is proposing to expand the patio to accommodate a brick fire pit. Regardless of the intended use, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot exterior side yard. The Subject Property has a regular shape and normal topography. The manner in which the house is located on the Subject Property does create challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, the same size (square footage) patio, but a different configuration, could be constructed east of the existing patio and still meet the required setbacks. The Petitioner states in the attached application that the patio would be screened by mature landscaping and a fence. Therefore, the request would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. However, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there isn't a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits them from complying with the required 20' setback. The Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as “a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances”. Although the site is a corner lot and could be described as having two ‘front yards’, this condition exists throughout the surrounding neighborhood and Village of Mount Prospect; therefore it is not unique to this property. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 3 Ms. Connolly said that although the proposed patio may be constructed in an attractive manner, its location is extremely close to the lot line. She said that Staff can appreciate the intent of the Petitioner’s request, however, locating a patio that includes a fire pit 6-feet from the sidewalk is a significant deviation from zoning regulations. The Petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations and the request is not essential, but more of a convenience. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards listed in deny the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 6’ exterior side yard for the proposed patio for the residence at 90 E. Milburn Ave., Case No. PZ-32-05." Ms. Connolly said that as the amount of the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement, the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Joseph Donnelly asked if they were to put a new fence up in what is now the front yard (east part of the house), would the zoning ordinance allow them to fence in this whole area proposed for the patio. Ms. Connolly clarified that the fence would need to be out of the 30’ setback, it is currently about 10’ back, so it would have to be shifted 20’ west out of the front yard, per code. The code does look at what is happening on neighboring properties; if it is an exterior yard, the setback should back the adjacent properties. Calling the external side yard a “transitional side yard,” Chairman Rogers asked if the fence along the side yard on the southern lot line could be rebuilt “as is.” Ms. Connolly clarified that per changes to the code last year, that fence along the exterior side yard (southern property line) would need to be at least a foot off the property line and would need to be relocated a little to allow a site triangle. The southern lot line is an exterior side yard, the western lot line would be considered transitional as it borders a neighboring house. Noting a new concrete curb cut, Chairman Rogers asked the driveway width, stating it appeared to be about 30 feet. Ms. Connolly indicated that field drawings would be needed to confirm the width. A permit was granted to modify the driveway but it would still need to be within code. The Commission confirmed that Emerson is the front yard and Milbourn should be considered as a side yard. The Petitioner, Cheryl Axley, 90 E. Milburn Ave., was sworn in. She opened her remarks by stating she’s lived in the home 20 years and is raising 3 teenagers. She started the project to extend what is existing and to put in a permanent fire pit, which would be safer than the temporary pit now used. She believes her home has unusual surroundings: 1) traffic is high from cut through traffic which is avoiding Route 83, 2) the western portion of her lot is virtually unusable due to lack of privacy, traffic lights, and noise, 3) the front yard is too narrow, 4) her lot is unlevel with a slope from north to south that has a 4 foot taper so that south side is most logical place to put pavers in. She also stated that to dig elsewhere would be a hardship, and that her sewer line runs in the area where the Village Code says she has to put the patio. She believes the logical place to put the extended patio is where she has outlined it. She continued that her home is extensively screened by landscaping and a fence which was put up by permit 14 years ago. No one objects to this and she has some letters of support from neighbors which she would like to add to the record. She mentioned a similar project close by in the neighborhood, stating it was allowed by the Village so it would be fair to allow her project. She brought photos to share with the Commission. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 4 Stuart Wolf, 3345 N. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, IL, attorney for the Petitioner was sworn in. Mr. Wolf said he was at the meeting as an attorney and was here to further explain the matter. He said his associate Riner Warner would assist with photos. He thanked the Commissioners for coming to view the property. Mr. Wolf showed a series of photographs of the property which captured in his opinion: how landscaping blocks the view of the yard completely o the area left to be worked on, indicating it is 14’ x 16’ o the view from the homeowner to the north showing the fence, tree line and slope rising to the northeast o a view of some of the completed work that demonstrates the sloping in the yard, the shrubbery and the o fencing that prohibits a view of the yard. unique topography and significant slope between the property and the home to the north boundary line o the area of the yard where the sewer line runs o Mr. Wolf next showed photographs of a property he stated was 123 S. Elmhurst Avenue, which he characterized as a similar home on a similar lot except that the lot is flat and doesn’t appear to have the same topography issues. He stated this was recent construction with improvements in the front yard and there is not the lush landscaping and density of trees or fencing to block the views from the street. With a large retaining wall swooping in front of the home, certainly a more extensive variance than they are seeking on the behalf of Ms. Axley. Leo Flores clarified the location of the home asking if the front of the home is on Evergreen next to the Church. Mr. Wolf continued that there is precedent “by fact of approval of a more significant project” to approve what was being requested tonight. He showed more views of this home. Chairman Rogers clarified where the retaining wall was and Ms. Axley clarified it was a sunken patio. Mr. Wolf continued that the retaining wall is clearly visible, clearly way in front of the structure, and over the building line, coming up almost to the fence line that would appear to be on the boundary line of the property. And that construction, he stated, they believe was done this spring. Chairman Rogers asked if this was in the front yard. Mr. Wolf replied it was a corner lot with a similar situation to Ms. Axley’s home. Mr. Flores and Keith Youngquist stated the home was on Evergreen. Staff was asked if this patio was built in the side yard setback with benefit of a permit. Ms. Connolly replied that this is the first she had learned of this example, if this was built last year, she was sure this was not done with benefit of a variation. She did note that an existing non-conforming patio can be rebuilt without complying to the setback as long as they meet lot coverage, but new construction must meet lot coverage. As this was the first Staff was hearing about this example, she said research time is needed. Mr. Wolf showed some drawings of the property at 90 E. Milburn stating that one or two of them had appeared in the packet but he wanted to point out a couple of other things. He stated that the first drawing shows the original plan. Gesturing to the area next to the driveway he stated that all of the work in the area had already been completed and area to southeast is the area in question. He stated the project is even with a walk and patio already in place, it is consistent with the fence, is aesthetically appropriate, it is all hidden by the fence and the shrubbery. He states this is the most functional use of the property and most functional design that could be furnished. To come up with an alternate would require coming into the yard with inherent risks involved with the sewer line and excavation. He stated his next drawing is the plan “that was part of the building permit that was issued,” also remarking this is what was approved and what was assumed to be approved by the homeowner. He continued, “There are no notations “as to subject to variance,” “variance needed” in order to accommodate the building line. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 5 Referring to the drawing, he stated, all of the highlighting was done by the Building Department and the work done was consistent with what the Building Department approved so the homeowner continued, subject to what she was given by the Building Department. The Commission questioned the fact that the drawing “clearly says 20’ setback and 21’ maximum for driveway.” Ms. Axely replied that she had written those notations herself. Mr. Wolf stated that, however, in a subsequent approval after the work was stopped, “the Building Department then came out and did approve the work in yellow, including the driveway in question. Again, the highlighting was done by Village Staff from the Building Department.” Mr. Wolf stated he believed Mr. Cooney was present; Ms. Axley clarified it was Mr. George. The drawing, which was not the permit approved Job Copy, showed a different plan with a notation by Building Commissioner Bill George, which read: “Yellow approved to be built.” Mr. Youngquist asked for clarification for the width of the driveway on the drawing, noting 2 numbers. Mr. Wolf said the driveway would appear to be 24’ wide with an additional 9’, therefore Mr. Roger’s estimate of 34 feet would be correct with the two added together. Mr. Wolf pointed out that the homeowner worked in accordance with the permit and the directive of Building Department. He said the only alternative noted in the Staff report would destroy the yard and run the risk of 2-3 feet of excavation not knowing where sewer line is, and not providing same aesthetic of the original plan. He said they wanted to submit a packet of letters from Don Wood, Contractor for the project, and all of the neighbors who would be affected by the possible impact of the project – all asking the Commission to move in favor of a variance. He noted the only neighbor with a view, the neighbor to north, submitted a letter of support. In reviewing the Village’s list of standards from the code, which would support the variance, Mr. Wolf noted they believe the homeowner has met all of the 7 points and made these points: Relating to the specific hardship, the alternative is not feasible due to the unknown risk of excavating and o the slope issues for drainage, they believe this is the only alternative; and, based upon amended plan approved by Village, the homeowner has extended significant money and now to drastically change the plan would cost additional monies. This is a unique situation due to the topography; this is not a simple flat land corner lot, this is a situation o not generally found with other properties. This is not being done for financial gain. o Homeowner did not create the hardship; she worked in accordance to plans given by the Building o Department. 5, 6, and 7 relating to whether the project is injurious to the public, the project has complied with these. o All standards have been met for the variance o In summarizing his comments Mr. Wolf stated: He does not believe the Village has an adequate view of the situation, noting the Staff summary eliminates o reference to hardship and the uniqueness of property. He believes the variance should be approved because the homeowner has met all the requirements. o Topography may not make it impossible, but makes it pretty darn hard. There is an unknown on what this would do to drainage for the yard given the slope from 2 different directions to the house. We acknowledge the property presents some challenges and the homeowner has met those challenges. He continued that there certainly is no desire for financial gain. The area in question that has been o excavated is 14’ x 16’ not 29’ x 14’ and therefore they believe is a much lesser impact than might have gotten from reading the summary. With recommendation of staff the proximity of firepit, not that he thinks it matters, is 13’ not 6’ making it less visible from the street given the dense landscaping. They think the project is a natural extension of lines of the home, request is essential, not a whimsy or convenience, but is appropriate use of yard space. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 6 This usage won’t diminish property values if anything will enhance values, is not injurious to anyone’s use o of property, and will not have any negative impact on character of the neighborhood, nor will it influence anyone else’s use of their own property. Variances come into play where desired use is prohibited under ordnance and when standards for o requesting a variance are met. What’s proposed is not inconsistent with neighbor and is justified by practical difficulties, hardship and uniqueness of the property. We think that fairness would require and request that the commission allow the petitioner to complete the project, especially where the homeowner relied on information from the building department and not suffer a further financial detriment due to the miscommunications. He referred again to the standards for variance summarizing his belief that the project met each. Mr. Donnelly asked who designed the patio. Mr. Wolf replied that in their packet was a letter from the company, Krugel Cobbles Inc. Mr. Wolf confirmed they had done the drawings. Mr. Donnelly asked if, when the contractor was doing the drawings, had they been advised a variance was needed? Ms. Axley came to the podium and said that when she first applied for the permit, “they told me to draw all the building lines on the survey and she said that part may not be approved, you may need a variance.” She continued, “So I said, well let me apply for it and I’ll get all the paperwork because she said it takes a long time to get a variance. I thought I’d get a head start in case it didn’t go through. So I talked with Judy and she said you’re probably going to need a variance, here’s the procedure, she gave me all the paperwork. I checked back a week later to see how the permit was coming and I went in and they had approved the whole job. And I asked the lady, I was real excited because I didn’t have to go through the variance procedure. I said, does this mean I can proceed on the whole job, and she said yes, just make sure they come out for the two inspections, one at the end and one in the middle and you’re good to go. So, I went.” Asked by Mr. Donnelly about a drawing they gave her that was marked with a 20 foot setback, Ms. Axley said she put that that on there. Mr. Donnelley asked if this was the case on the notation for the 21 foot driveway width, noting it looked like it was put in by the Village. Ms. Axley said she drew all of that on there when she applied for the permit because she was told to. Mr. Donnelly asked if whoever took the permit drawing to do the design drawing had asked about the notation for the setback and driveway. After clarifying he was referring to her contractor, Ms. Axley and Mr. Wolfe both said, “No.” Mr. Donnelley stated he didn’t understand, the drawing showed a 6’1” setback and asked if the first time she found out she was within the 20’ setback was when the Inspector came out and said she had a problem. Ms. Axley replied, “No, when I applied for the permit they told me there was a setback line, so I knew when I applied for the permit that the line was, I drew the line on the survey myself.” Mr. Donnelly asked when the Contractor drew his drawings: did he know there was a 20’ setback requirement and did he advise her she was in the 20’ setback of the need for a variance? She stated “No, he didn’t advise her of any zoning issues. I told him we might have to hold up a portion of the job to get a variance and then when I got the permit, I didn’t think I needed a variance. “ Mr. Donnelly said he sees a discrepancy between the fact that she got approval to proceed with a 20’ setback and the guy who designed it designed within that 20’ setback without telling you; he’s got a problem. Mr. Wolfe said that he thinks what Ms. Axley is saying is that when she got the permit, she was instructed, “draw these lines in.” She then applied for it and received it back, that was one of the drawings that we showed you. Mr. Donnelley interjected, “which clearly shows that the whole patio should be within the buildable space.” Mr. Wolf continued, “Yes, but the Building Department had highlighted the entire whole project as approved, including that portion of the project over the 20’ setback line. When Ms. Axley questioned the two women in the Building Department whether a variance was still required, the answer was “no, you can proceed.” ” Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Donnelly asked to see the drawing which showed that the Village had approved it within the 20’ setback. Mr. Wolf referred to the approved building permit drawing and Mr. Donnelly replied that drawing clearly showed the need for a 20’ setback. Mr. Wolf respectfully disagreed, stating it showed a highlighted portion over the setback line and said the highlighting was done by the Village. Mr. Donnelly stated he didn’t see it that way, but o.k. Ms. Axley said that was the problem she has, because they were saying... Commissioner Donnelly interjected, that the guy drawing the plans should have noted the discrepancy as he was actually building stuff within that 20’ setback and I’m hearing that he never told you that. Ms. Axley replied, “they didn’t discuss the zoning, no.” Mr. Youngquist clarified to Ms. Axely, “You indicated you put those numbers on there for a 20’ setback?” Ms. Axley and Mr. Wolf replied yes she had, the Building Department had told them to write that on there. Regarding the 21’ max on the driveway width, Mr. Youngquist clarified it was Ms. Axley’s handwriting as well and she replied yes. He asked how it was that the driveway is now 33’ wide. She replied “that it’s always been long; it’s always been extra wide. But, they were telling me what the restrictions were….” Mr. Youngquist interjected, “but that’s not what this site plan shows, it doesn’t show a 33’ wide curb cut. I can tell just by looking at it, unless the surveyor is …. wacky.” Chairman Rogers stated it appeared to him that the curb cut is brand new. Mr. Youngquist stated, “well that’s absolutely wrong.” Ms. Axley said it was being extended; they took down a huge tree a few years ago and before that the drive…. Mr. Youngquist stated the maximum driveway width on a huge lot is 26’, it’s 21’ on these 50’ lots and to have a 33’ driveway curb cut out there, it’s just not right. Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly to clarify for the Commission on what happened at the Building Department. Ms. Connolly replied that she wasn’t there at the Building Department during transactions on this permit; she herself can look at these sheets and see the setback or width is marked. She said that when you submit multiple copies, one’s the job copy that needs to be on site for the contractor to follow, one’s an inspector copy, and one’s a file copy. Chairman Rogers summarized that it was clear that the 20’ setback and 21’ driveway are part of the permit no matter who colored in with yellow. Mr. Donnelley said they were allowed to build, based upon a 21’ driveway and a 20’ setback. But, stated, Chairman Rogers, somehow the project was built with a 33’driveway, a 6’ side yard instead of the 20’ side yard. Putting a drawing of the project on the overhead screen, Mr. Wolf said, that was where they had demonstrated that Bill George and Mr. Cooney had signed off on the expanded project; we call it the 31’ driveway. Chairman Rogers responded that without them being here, we don’t really know what happened. All we can see is what’s on the original copy. Chairman Rogers said the drawing being shown was a sketch; not the permit drawing. Mr. Wolf said, but you can see their signatures here and the words, “yellow area approved for completion, 7/25/05, initialed by William George, with signatures by Mr. George and Mr. Cooney.” Ms. Connolly and Mr. Youngquist stated that those signatures were not made by either Bill George or Bill Cooney. Ms. Axley confirmed she had written the names of Mr. George and Mr. Cooney on the drawing. Mr. Wolf apologized and did confirm that it was indeed Mr. George’s initials next to the words “approved for completion.” The Commissioners turned their attention to the two highlight areas on the drawing, one area being the driveway, and one area being a small piece of patio to the east of the driveway. The Chairman noted that the portion of the patio in yellow was allowed, but it was basically larger than would normally be allowed and the drawing did not have the remainder of the patio (including the firepit) marked “as approved,” according to the note. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 8 Mr. Wolf said that’s why they’re saying that viewed in light of what was approved and what was originally approved, the new patio area was in its logical place. Mr. Rogers stated that one of the problems the Commission had was that if they allowed this on their side yard, the next person will come in and ask for the same. Just the same way they were saying that it had been allowed on the other house and we don’t know what happened there but we don’t want to get into that situation. He continued, “We don’t want to get into a situation where somebody does something that’s illegal, and I have to careful here, I know you’re an attorney…. We don’t want to get into a situation where someone does something that’s not correct and we accept that and all of a sudden that becomes the precedent for other requests.” Mr. Wolf replied that he thinks they could go back to hardship and topographical issues that he’s been addressing: the fact of the topographical slope of the yard from the east and the north, the excavation, the fact that this isn’t as described in the staff report a typical corner lot, but there are topographical issues that really restrict what Ms. Axley can do with the property and that makes it more unique than the average corner property. Chairman Rogers said there could also be a raised patio constructed that would eliminate the problem of having to do the excavation and the sewer is normally 3.5 feet below grade so he doesn’t see that as becoming a major factor. There are several ways to solve the other problems without creating a precedent in the Village for future side yard variations. Mr. Wolf said he understands and respectfully disagrees because to do the extension that he’s suggesting perhaps to the east, within the lines destroys a good portion of what remains of the grassy portion of the yard. He thinks that where you might have to go 3 feet plus or minus in excavation and we hope the sewer is 3 feet deep, you are getting mighty risky as to where that bobcat has to go before it hits the sewer line. If the sewer line is a little bit higher than where it should be, you have a risk involved. He thinks there are some good arguments here to go with the variance without setting a precedent and to go with this plan instead of alternate plans suggested. Chairman Rogers said he didn’t know who suggested those plans but if those plans were legal alternatives he thinks the homeowner should explore those alternatives. And again, it could be a raised patio; the patio doesn’t have to be dug down into the ground and then the water from next door would fall on that patio. You’d be better off to raise that patio and avoid the water problem altogether, avoid the sewer problem and you wouldn’t be setting the precedent we’re talking about. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other questions for the Petitioner. He asked if there was anyone else in the audience who wished to address this. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the hearing and brought it back to the Board. Mr. Donnelly had a question for Ms. Connolly asking what would happen under the new fencing code, what would happen if the Petitioner applied for a new fence today, would the fire pit area be outside the fenced area? Ms. Connolly replied yes, she thought so. Mr. Roberts asked, “Did the Village approve or not approve the existing already built portion of the patio that is 7’1” from the south lotline?” It seems to me that all the Petitioner is seeking is to build a firepit; the column would go only be 6 ‘1” from the lot line. I’m not an architect, some of these guys are. He sees that if this has been approved already at 7’1 inch from lotline he doesn’t see a bi tissue to go 1 more foot. She does have special circumstances. He sees this as a transitional neighborhood, this is downtown, it’s one block from the downtown, I drive this everyday on my way to the train. There are special circumstances in addition to the topography. Ms. Connolly said she could not locate a permit for the patio in the exterior side yard, and could only find a permit for a 4’ service walk only in the exterior side yard; she doesn’t see approval for the patio east of the service walk. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 9 Mr. Roberts asked how far from the south line the service walk would be. Ms. Connolly replied that the service walk was approved to be 4’ in width. Chairman Rogers clarified it would be from the public sidewalk, which is allowed. Chairman Rogers said he was concerned because he’s seeing a driveway put in well beyond the dimensions specified, a patio put in beyond a walk that was approved, and there appears to be a disregard to building codes unless Bill George or someone else has approved this and we don’t see evidence of this tonight. Ms. Connolly said she doesn’t have enough information and can only go on the microfilm information for the permit history. Mr. Youngquist said he was disappointment that the permit was approved based on a site plan with a few marks and not a drawing with actual dimensions. The sketch has the Petitioner’s own writing with notations for 21-feet, “on it; you don’t come up with 21’ out of your head, somebody said that was the width – it’s an odd dimension. 20’ on the setback – it’s clearly marked on there as well and those are the only 2 things on that drawing that stand out to me as something realistic and written in stone. This must be 21’, this must be a 20’ setback. They didn’t pay any attention to this; the contractor must have not even looked at that drawing, never questioned it – “I’m not digging until we get this resolved, I’m not cutting this curb until I get answers.” Mr. Roberts stated that maybe one answer was to get more facts. It might be to the Petitioner’s advantage to withdraw until we know more. He noted he’d read through letters form neighbors and all were very positive. One stood out to him, from Mary Johnson, 215 Emerson Street: “it is very concerning that given that rules are broken for other projects all around us.” Mr. Youngquist said he understands what he’s saying, but this is residential and it’s not a transitional area. Property improvement is fantastic but in this situation it seems somebody turned the other way and said we’re going to do what we’re going to do and if we get caught, we get caught. I love to see beautiful improvements. Chairman Rogers agreed it was a beautiful home and an attribute to community, but you can’t do what you want to do, that’s why we have the rules we do have. Mr. Donnelly said that there are alternative solutions. Even though there are construction issues there are no technical issues that would create a hardship. Plus, to build in this area that would later be in front of a fence line; we’re trying to open up the yards. Mr. Flores asked where the Building Department was in this, how can this happen 2 blocks away from Village Hall. Ms. Connolly noted the project was stopped when the inspection occurred. In regard to the driveway, she’d have to check on the approved width and would do so first thing tomorrow. Mr. Flores stated he was in agreement with Mr. Roberts and supported the Petitioner; her facts could be described as hardships. He’s disturbed by comments and would like further explanation from the Building Department as to how these things can happen and no one is aware of them. He’d like to hear from Cobble Kugles as well. Mr. Donnelly noted that the fence is a non-conforming fence now even though it’s been there for years. He said he’d like to hear from Bill George. Mr. Youngquist noted this is a bad situation. He said we get beautiful drawings from people wanting to come in for a variation to put on a 5’ porch and here with a potentially more technically complicated project we’re working from no drawings at all. Mr. Donnelly noted that the architectural drawing from the designer they did have wasn’t part of the building permit application. It was noted it the Barrington surveyor drawing was provided after the fact. It was determined that Bill George would be asked to come to the next meeting or provide a written response. The Petitioner was asked if she was willing to continue this to the next meeting. Ms. Axley came to the podium and said she’d done everything that was asked of her and nothing was done on the sly: Bill George approved the driveway, he approved all the whole yellow area and everything was done with the Village approval. She didn’t know she had ichard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-32-05 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 Page 10 to get this variance, she thought with the permit she wouldn’t need the variance, that’s why the area was excavated. She didn’t finish that area, she’s there asking for the variance now. Chairman Rogers suggested the item be tabled until they got more facts because he feared that she might not get the variance. He asked that someone from the Permit Department attend the meeting and provide facts. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to table the case until September 22, 2005; the motion was seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved 5-0 at 9:01 PM. Chairman Rogers stated, “So this was tabled, she will lose a month’s time; it will be brought up under old business at the next meeting, September 22. It remains Village Board final.” After hearing discussing 2 more items and the topic of Circular Driveways, Joseph Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. _________________________________ Ellen Divita, Deputy Director C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-32-05 90 E. Milburn - VAR - Ext Side yard (JMC version)1.doc