Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/2005 P&Z minutes 32-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-32-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 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 & Driveway) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Stuart Wolf, Ronald Nelson Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. At 8:00 pm, Chair Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-32-05, a request for Variations to allow a patio to encroach 14' into the required exterior side yard and to allow a 33' wide driveway. She said that the case was heard at the August 25, 2005 meeting, but was tabled because the Commission asked for additional information. A motion was made by Richard Rogers to place this case back for discussion, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Juracek said that the Village Board's decision was final for these requests. Bill Cooney, Director of Community Development, stated that he was at the meeting to provide more background information. It is clear there was miscommunication or misunderstanding over this permit at 2 key points. The initial false start was when the Petitioner came in, met with Staff, and was advised that a Variation was needed for the both the patio in the side yard and for the width of the driveway, if she wanted to proceed as proposed. The Petitioner submitted the permit drawings for the overall project to the Building Division and they were routed to the other divisions for review. The permit was issued with the notations the Commission has seen for 21' on the driveway width and a 20' setback for the patio. There was an understanding by Staff that the permit was being issued, as notated on the plan that was part of the file. In discussing with Ms. Axley, she walked away from the issuance of the permit believing the project was approved as submitted and that what was submitted could be built. That was the first false start. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 2 When the Building Inspector went out and reviewed the site, he saw the work being installed didn't meet the approved permit. Then Ms. Axley came in and met with Building Commissioner Bill George and from that meeting there was the highlighted exhibit shown at the last meeting. Mr. George has indicated that at the meeting with Ms. Axley his intent was to see what could be done at that point to get the project moving without the Variation so that she could at least get moving on a portion of the project. Bill George indicated that the drawing he wrote on during that meeting was not part of the permit file, did not have dimensions, and was considered by him to be a design conception. He highlighted the driveway, the patio area behind the house that was set back 20', and the sidewalk connecting the two areas. Again the misunderstanding was Bill's belief that what he was doing was agreeing that these portions of the project could be done within code, going back to the permit drawing that was approved with the notation for 21' driveway and 20' setback for the patio. Ms. Axley took the drawing and went back and probably showed the contractor, and it was installed. Unfortunately, what is shown here in this drawing, if scaled out, is what exists today; the dimension of the driveway apron is approximately 33', the driveway itself at its widest point is 28-29'. In hindsight, from an administrative standpoint, the Petitioner went through this process in good faith, not in any back-handed manner, or on the sly. She did apply for a permit, she did call for her inspections, she did meet with Staff throughout the whole process, and she really did try to comply with the Village Code. We have reviewed this situation internally to determine how we can improve our process. Discussions have identified that in the future we should not be approving any plans that aren't drawn to scale or that are hand drawn without accurate dimensions because that's where the beginning of the problem started. Second, we need to cross out any areas that wouldn't meet Village Code regulations. Even though we wrote dimensions on the drawing, we should cross out areas that are not approved. And, finally in regards to the drawing from Mr. George, which I saw for the first time last month, we should not be approving or writing on plans that are not part of the permit file. Mr. George indicated that he did it in an attempt to help the Petitioner, but again, we should not be writing on plans that are not part of the permit file. Again, I wanted to come explain in greater detail to the Commission, that things were done in good faith on both sides, and I ask that you consider this Variation request based on the facts of the property. Comm. Rogers clarified this was an honest mistake in the process. Comm. Donnelley asked who typically takes out a permit, the contractor or the homeowner. Mr. Cooney indicated there is no "normal," that some contractors want the homeowners to get the permit while others will handle the permit themselves. Comm. Roberts asked if the Staff visits every property prior to issuing a permit, which might help avoid these types of problems. Mr. Cooney stated that this only occurs if there are questions up front about compliance. Chairman Juracek asked if the fence could be rebuilt in the future without a variance and if the firepit would be inside a permitted fence. The answer is no, the fence there now would not be allowed without a variation. The yard is unique in that the front yard as defined by Village Code, is acting as the rear yard and the home is set back 71'. On corner lots the fence must be in line with the building in the front yard. Typically on a corner lot, the home is flush with other homes on the street (Emerson in this case), but here the home is set back. Comm. Donnelly asked why the home has a Milburn address and not an Emerson address. The home is approximately 20-30 years old. The Zoning Ordinance defines front yard as the narrowest side of lot and addressing tends to follow that convention as well. If this were subdivided today, the address would be Emerson, but it was built with a Milburn address. The front yard setback is 70'; though required setback is 30'. This home could be added onto an additional 40 feet to the east if all other codes were met. Chairman Juracek noted as an aside that she had visited several homes in the general area of this home. She felt the 123 S. Elmhurst property was particularly attractive. In the future the Village may want to consider allowing Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 3 patios in exterior side yards as a Special Use because of the open feel it lends to a neighborhood - which she observes is better than a solid wood fence. She noted this for future consideration as a means to preserve the character of neighborhoods. Comm. Rogers noted that this would be a tough thing to enforce without an appearance review of those requests. As there were no more questions from the Commission, Chairman Juracek asked if the Petitioner had anything to add to the record. Stuart Wolf, 3345 N. Arlington Heights Road, said he was appearing as the Petitioner's attorney. He wanted to point out that the original drawing included highlighting south of the boundary line. Additionally when work was stopped in July and Ms. Axley met with the Building Commissioner there were no measurements made as to the width of the driveway. If necessary, Mr. Nelson, who was with the Petitioner at several of the meetings is here this evening and available for questions. The Petitioner had only completed the work highlighted by the Building Department which included the entire driveway; he noted the driveway being replaced was 26' not 21'. He believes there are many unique features of this property which support the variance request. The Petitioner would TUn the risk of drainage problems and hitting a sewer line were she to move the patio. He noted she has expended sizable dollars on this project. If there had been just one mistake that would be her problem to deal with but with the multiplicity of mistakes she shouldn't be required to remove work already done. He believes that all factors required for a variance have been met and it has been established that there was no flagrant disregard for Village Code. He doesn't believe a precedent will be set. All of the neighbors affected by the project support it. He summarized that the uniqueness of the property, the hardship to the Petitioner, meeting Village Code requirements, meeting with Village Staff, the good faith effort to meet the code, along with the enhancement to the property all support the request. Chairman Juracek asked if he was able to give testimony for the Petitioner. He said no, he was making a statement as her Attorney but Ronald Nelson would. Mr. Nelson, of 200 N. Arlington Heights Road was sworn in, stating he was a close personal friend of Ms. Axley and had participated in several of the meetings. Comm. Donnelly asked Mr. Nelson if he thought Building Commissioner Bill George knew the dimensions of the drawing he had signed was 31'; Mr. Nelson said yes, it was his impression Bill George did know dimensions and there was discussion on the flare of the driveway to match the driveway width north of the sidewalk. The driveway above the sidewalk and the service walk north of the sidewalk was a replacement of existing; the garage is 27-29' wide. The apron was widened; it is Mr. Nelson's opinion that this was clearly known. Chairman Juracek clarified if the Commission should be discussing the driveway as public notice for the case had been for the patio section. Mr. Cooney replied that Village Attorney Buzz Hill had been consulted that he advised that the Commission could take action on both variations as notice had been given to surrounding property owners that variations were being sought. Comm. Roberts said he feels the Petitioner should be able to complete her project. The Commission asked Sr. Planner Judy Connolly if she was aware of the dimensions of the driveway at the meeting when Mr. George signed the drawing. She replied that she came in at the end of the meeting and does not recall dimensions being discussed when she was present. There being no further questions for the Petitioner or comment from the audience, at 8:31 the hearing was closed. Comm. Roberts stated he sees this as a transitional neighborhood; the privacy is there; the neighbors are for it; it's an attractive home; he supports the project. Comm. Rogers said he was opposed based on the fact that the work is in side yard and this is an extra wide driveway that is not allowed for others. He understands the Village's complicity in this item but this isn't a project he'd normally vote for. Comm. Donnelly said that at 6' off the sidewalk the firepit is built in an area that wouldn't be fenced if the fence is replaced; he has a concern for people walking down the street. He does believe there's an economic hardship on Milburn with the amount of cut through traffic the street sees so he can support the variance for the driveway but not for the patio area. "~'---",- "'''''''''''''''=''''''''''.~"",,,,,~=,"=,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,..~.~=,..,. "......,.=.,"".,~"."v,,".."'''''''',.--c.'''~=.y,;~"."''..,_7'.''''_'''''."""""".~~.~-"'"O."^"'"'O',~""".,."'..~.""'"""'..=_",,.~_~""~~_.""~~_~________'___'__~___"~_'~___"_~__'_"___ Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 4 Comm. Flores says we need to look beyond the miscommunication and consider the facts of the lot in question. He thinks this is a good development which will benefit the property and the area and he has no problem supporting. Comm. Haaland said the neighbors are comfortable with the project, the fence and hedge are in place, the Petitioner acted in good faith and she can support. Comm. Youngquist said the Petitioner acted in good faith; regarding the apron, there was an existing tree there and he can understand the expansion of the driveway. He has less issue with the firepit as it will always be protected from view. This is unfortunate that the project is being discussed after construction has begun and the Petitioner needs to finish it as conceived and developed so far. Replacement of the fence was discussed and Mr. Cooney confirmed that if more than 50% of the fence was to be replaced at one time a Variation would be needed, but maintenance on smaller sections is allowed. The fence is a legal non-conforming use and there was a permit for the original fence. Chairman Juracek summarized that the Commission had learned that the driveway north of the sidewalk was a legal nonconforming use that could be replaced in kind, which makes it an unusual situation. The apron was symmetrical with the area to the north. Having lived on Emerson she understand the traffic in the area and to move the patio to the northeast would put it higher and closer to traffic, resulting in less privacy. She is comfortable with the proposal. A motion was made by Richard Rogers and seconded by Keith Youngquist to approve a Variation to allow a 6' exterior side yard for the proposed patio and a 33' wide driveway at the curb cut, as shown on the Petitioner's exhibits, for the residence at 90 E. Milburn Ave., Case No. PZ-32-05. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, Haaland, Juracek, NAYS: Rogers, Donnelly The motion was approved 5-2. The case will go before the Village Board on October 18,2005. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adj ourned. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director C:\Documcnts and Settings\kdewis\Local Sctlings\Temporary Internet Filcs\OLK2\PZ-32-05 90 E. Milburn - VAR - Ext Side yard (Sepl Mccting'.doc . .,---..'\,"",.'..,;..";_..,.",=""-=."..,,,,..,.....,,""=...="--=<"".........~'",~.=~.-.,""-="~'".,"'''"'...''''.,.~..'"~.,','~w,..,,.,'''''''''''-.~".,,'-,,,-.,.,=.,.""'"."~-"''''..,;'''''.,,.''',~"_....~_~r'''"'''''''''''.<."''''''''''''"'.,,''''"~'=?,,_'''''''''=_._____~_~_~~''''_~<",..,.."'''''',,."','''<'''"'''''''''''''~_.~~__,,~~.~___,__~