HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 12/20/05
MAYOR
Irvana K. Wilks
TRUSTEES
Timothy 1. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
A. John Kom
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michaele W. Skowron
Michael A. Zadel
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
M. Lisa Angell
Mount Prospect
~
Village of Mount Prospect
50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
CANCELLATION NOTICE
THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING
SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY DECEMBER 22,2005
HAS BEEN CANCELLED
Phone: (847) 392-6000
Fax: (847) 818-5336
TDD: (847) 392-6064
MAYOR
Irvana K. Wilks
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
M. Lisa Angell
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
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
December 22, 2005
7:30 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10,2005 P&Z MEETING
A. PZ-37-05 1309 Westgate Roadl Plat of Resubdivision.
B. PZ-41-05 1 1705 Verde Drive 1 Variation.
e. PZ-42-05 1 605 Oriole Lane 1 Conditional Use (porch).
IV. OLD BUSINESS
V.
A.
B.
e.
D.
VI.
.
.
.
VII.
None
NEW BUSINESS
PZ-44-05 1 Northeast comer of Algonquin & Linneman Roads 1 Rezoning, Variations, and Plat of
Resubdivision (create 210ts of record). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
PZ-45-05 1 516 Deborah Lane 1 Variation (Front Yard Setback - 2nd story addition) 1 Kaszuba
Residence. NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Final.
PZ-46-05 1 401-455 S. Elmhurst Road 1 Elmhurst Townhomes 1 Conditional Use (Planned Unit
Development). ). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
PZ-47-05 1 1400 Business Center Drive! Dennis Uniform 1 Variation (more than 10% retail in II
District). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
PZ-39-05 1222 S. Edward Street: Village Board deferred to 12/20105
PZ-37-05 1309 Westgate Roadl Plat of Resubdivision - Village Board approved 12/6105
PZ-41-051 1705 Verde Drive 1 Variation: Village Board approved 12/6/05
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-37-05
Hearing Date: November 10, 2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
309 Westgate
PETITIONERS:
Witold and Barbara Skowron
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 26, 2005
PIN#:
03-35 -40 1-061-0000
REQUEST:
Plat of Resubdivision & Development Code exception
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Marlys Haaland
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jill Baty, Planning Intern
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Jason Dolan, Thomas & Witold Skowron
Acting Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Youngquist moved to approve
the minutes, of the October 27, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0, with Leo Floros abstaining. At 7:34 pm, Acting Chairman Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-37-05,
a Resubdivision Plat and Development Code. He said that the case is Village Board final and that the
Commission will make a recommending vote tonight.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. The Subject Property is located on the east side of
Westgate Road, between Cardinal and Wildwood Lanes, and contains a single-family residence with related
improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the Rl
District.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner would like to demolish the existing residence and resubdivide the Subject
Property to create a two-lot subdivision. The R1 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet
and the proposed lots would each measure 10,491.6 square feet, which exceeds the R1 minimum lot size
requirements. The proposed homes would meet the applicable zoning regulations. However, due to the manner
in which the surrounding lots were developed, the large lot size, and the Petitioner seeking to meet Village Codes
regulations, the proposed lots would exceed the depth-to-width ratio requirement listed in the Subdivision &
Development Code.
Ms. Connolly stated that the table in the Staff Report lists the bulk regulations for the R1 zoning district and lists
the current setbacks. The Petitioner has not finalized the design of the proposed houses, but understands the new
structures must comply with all Village Code requirements. The Village's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10,2005
PZ-37-05
Page 2
Map designate the Subject Property as Single Family Residence. The Petitioner's proposed Resubdivision is in
keeping with the Village's designation.
Ms. Connolly noted the Engineering Division had no objections to the resubdivision or Development Code
exception. They found that the plat was prepared in accordance with Village Codes. The Petitioner is required to
provide storm water detention as the Development Code requires detention when two or more lots are created.
Also, Staff found that the proposed plat is in keeping with current development trends for this neighborhood and
the size of the proposed lots would be consistent with other properties in this area.
Ms. Connolly reiterated that the Petitioner seeks to create two lots of record by subdividing the Subject Property.
The proposed plat is part of PZ-37-05, a Resubdivision request and Development Code Exception request. The
plat was prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements, but the Petitioner is seeking relief
from the Development Code regulations for the lot depth-to-width ratio. She said the Development Code permits
the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in
cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed
upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means
of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare.. ."
Ms. Connolly said the request must meet the standards for an exception, which are listed in Sec. 15.109. She
summarized the standards and noted that the Subject Property measures slightly less than one-acre in size and the
proposed lots will exceed the minimum requirements of the Rl zoning district. Due to the manner in which the
adjacent properties were subdivided, as well as the Village's policy of requiring direct access onto each lot of
record, the Petitioner has designed the two-lot subdivision in a manner that exceeds the 2 12: 1 depth-to-width
ratio required by the Development Code. The 2 12: 1 ratio required by Village Code dictates a lot depth of no
more than 206.7' and the Petitioner proposes a 253.79' lot depth. The increased lot depth for the properties is a
result of the manner in which the properties were originally subdivided. The neighborhood is developed and the
proposed lot depth is consistent with the other properties on the block. In addition, the 'extra' depth will be used
to accommodate the required storm water detention. The proposed lot depths would not have a detrimental
impact on the public health, safety or general welfare. The increased lot depth would not adversely affect the
character of the surrounding neighborhood, or utility provision and it would be in compliance with the Village's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Connolly said, based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve
the following motion:
"To approve the 309 Westgate Resubdivision and Development Code exception to allow a 2-lot subdivision, with
lots measuring 82.68' x 253.79' each, as shown on the Petitioner's plat ofresubdivision for 309 Westgate Road,
Case No. PZ-37-05."
Acting Chairman Rogers requested clarification on the minimum lot width for an R1 lot. Ms. Connolly replied
that the minimum requirement is 65 feet. There were no further questions from the commission.
Jason Doland ofW.C. Doland Engineering, Inc 509 East Dundee Rd, Palatine, IL was sworn in. He thanked staff
for more than adequate presentation. He wanted to emphasize that the subdivision of this lot will actually
improve drainage in the neighborhood and will provide a net benefit to the area. There were no further questions
for Mr. Doland.
Thomas and Witold Skowron, 659 Debra Lane, Des Plaines, IL were sworn in. The Skowrons said they own the
property at 309 Westgate Rd and thanked staff and engineering for the presentation. They said that they intend to
build a single family, bi-Ievel home approximately 3800 sq ft. for their family on one of the lots. There were no
further questions for the Petitioner.
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10,2005
PZ-37-05
Page 3
Acting Chairman Rogers called for further questions, hearing none; the public hearing was closed at 7:42 pm.
Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the proposed resubdivision and Development Code exception
request as submitted by the Petitioner for the property at 309 Westgate, Case No. PZ-37-05. Joseph Donnelly
seconded the motion
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdc\l,Iis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK2\PZ~37~05 309 Westgate Plat ofRcsubdivision.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-41-05
Hearing Date: November 10, 2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS
1705 Verde Drive
PETITIONERS:
Mark and Marlene Neuhalfen
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 26, 2005
PIN#:
08-10-212-012-0000
REQUEST:
Variation (Front Yard Setback)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Marlys Haaland
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jill Baty, Planning Intern
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Mark Neuhalfen
Acting Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Youngquist moved to approve
the minutes, of the October 27, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0, with Leo Floros abstaining. At 7:43 pm, Acting Chairman Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-41-05,
a request for Variation for the front yard setback. He said that the case is Village Board final and the Commission
will make a recommending vote tonight.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Verde
Drive, south of Bonita Avenue, and contains a 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 Subject
Property has an irregular shape as the front of the lot measures 62-feet wide, but the rear of the lot measures 80-
feet wide. In addition, the lot depth varies, with the southern lot line measuring 23-feet longer than the northern
lot line. The existing home is currently setback 27' 8" from the front lot line, 12' 11" and 1 0' 6" from the interior
lot lines, and approximately 86' from the rear lot line.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home include a second story addition
and an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch would extend 5-feet from the existing house, resulting in a 22'8"
setback. The proposed unenclosed porch request requires a Variation because the front yard will be less than 25-
feet, which is the minimum yard required as a condition of the Conditional Use approval process. In addition, the
Petitioner's plans call for the second story addition to continue the existing nonconforming front setback, 27'8".
This aspect of the project also requires a Variation because the Zoning Ordinance requires that new construction
comply with the current front yard setback of 30-feet.
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10,2005
PZ-41-05
Page 2
Ms. Connolly said the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house
encroaches into the required front yard. However, the existing structure is a legal nonconformity and is allowed
to remain in its current locations. The proposed unenclosed porch and second story addition require relief from
the R1 District's bulk regulations for the front yard setback. The project would be constructed according to all
applicable Village Codes. The table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single
Family Residence District's bulk requirements. It shows that the Subject Property would continue to be well
below the maximum lot coverage and that the only changes to the setbacks would occur in the front yard.
Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Zoning
Ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard for the house. However, the existing structure does not meet this
requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct an unenclosed porch 5-feet further into the existing
nonconforming setback. Also, the proposed second story addition would maintain the existing nonconforming
setback, which is 27'8". Staff researched adjacent properties' setbacks and found that most houses in the area are
setback at least 30' from the front property line. However, there was one exception and the house has a 24' front
setback. Therefore, Staff found that the Petitioner's request would not be in keeping with the adjacent properties'
setbacks.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing home to create additional living space. After
meeting with Staff and discussing the project in great detail, the Petitioner explored different designs for the
addition. However, they determined the porch was necessary to link the addition to the existing house and that
modifying the second story addition, to meet the 30-foot setback requirement, would not be aesthetically pleasing.
Ms. Connolly said that although the lot has a somewhat odd shape, the front yard is not impacted by its
irregularities. While the proposed design is aesthetically pleasing and Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire
to improve their property, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The front yard is typical of most lots in the Village, and the lot shape
irregularities effect the rear yard, not the front yard.
Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion:
"To approve a Variation to allow a 22'8" front yard for an unenclosed porch and to allow a 27'8" setback for a
second story addition, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1705 Verde Drive, Case No. PZ-
41-05."
Ms. Connolly said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation
exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement.
Acting Chairman Rogers requested clarification on his understating of the porch request: he said historically the
Commission has allowed an unenclosed front porch up to the 25-foot setback line, and theoretically by building a
3-foot front porch versus the proposed 5-foot porch, it would be acceptable at the 25-foot setback line. Ms.
Connolly confirmed his understanding was correct.
Mark Neuhalfen of 1705 Verde Drive, Mt. Prospect, IL was sworn in. Mr. Neuhalfen said he is the Petitioner and
property owner. He presented his case with a detailed presentation. Mr. Neuhalfen stated they have been
residents of Mt. Prospect for 13 years and intend to stay in this home. They are not looking for a short-term
resolution or any financial gain. He has a young, growing family and find the need to expand the home to
accommodate their living space needs. They have considered other expansion options and the plans, as
submitted, are the ideal choice for their situation. Aside from meeting the needs of his family, Mr. Neuhalfen
indicated that this addition would add value to the home and the neighborhood. Mr. Neuhalfen stated he would be
happy to answer questions from the Commission.
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10, 2005
PZ-41-05
Page 3
Acting Chair Rogers requested information on the age of the home. It was determined that the home was
constructed in 1955 and improvements were made to the home in 1989, which was verified per the plat of survey.
Acting Chair Rogers stated that the Petitioner "inherited" the home at its current nonconforming setback and that
is disadvantageous. He stated that the Commission could approve a porch up to the 25-foot setback, however he
realizes the decreased size would make the porch less accessible. Mr. Neuhalfen acknowledged the 3-foot porch
would be easier to get approval on, but again, the decreased size would make the porch virtually unusable space.
Keith Youngquist asked the Petitioner for clarification on their decision to not proceed with a backyard addition.
Mr. Neuhalfen said that they had considered all options, but loosing yard space was not conducive to the daily
activities of the family. It is very important to the Neuhalfen Family to continue to have ample backyard space
for their children. Mr. Youngquist acknowledged his understanding of what the Petitioner is requesting.
Leo Floros asked Ms. Connolly to identify the front yard setbacks on other homes in the area. Ms. Connolly said
Staff found one other home in the immediate area that had a sub-standard setback. She explained that the
placement of the front stoop, which also encroaches in the front yard and creates to a 22-foot setback, is what may
give the impression of a shallow front yard. Ms. Connolly said the stoop is a permitted encroachment on the
property and that design is a common design for other homes in the neighborhood. Joseph Donnelly added that
the home is located on the curve of Verde Drive and that could give the appearance of a shallow front yard.
Ronald Roberts asked how far the new porch and steps would encroach into the setback. The current steps are at
a 22-foot setback and the proposed steps will be placed at a 22'8" setback. Joseph Donnelly said that the
proposed porch will actually have a decreased setback from the existing stairs. He also pointed out there may be
some discrepancy in the measurements on the plat of survey due to the curvature in the road. He further stated
that the proposed porch will not change the side view of the streetscape and there is little to no difference on how
far the proposed porch will encroach the front yard versus the existing stairs. Acting Chair Roberts acknowledged
this viewpoint.
Acting Chair Roberts called for additional questions, hearing none, the hearing was closed at 8:03 pm.
Joseph Donnelly summarized that while the Petitioner's request is not ideal, he feels that potentially inaccurate
measurements resulted in the home being built at a sub-standard setback. Ronald Roberts pointed out that there
were no other residents from the neighborhood at the meeting to object. Also, the aesthetics of the project are
appealing and add a lot of architectural interest to the neighborhood. Keith Youngquist stated that 5-foot front
yard encroachments have become a common request and that the Petitioner has done an excellent job of
architecturally presenting his proposal. The Commission concluded that they feel this is a pro-active project to
improve a single-family residence in the neighborhood.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the proposed variation of the front yard setback as submitted by the
Petitioner for the residence at 1705 Verde Drive, Case No. PZ-41-05 with the condition that the porch remains
unenclosed. Leo Floros seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
C:\Documcnts and SCltings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Intcmcl Filcs\OLK2\PZ-4I.05 1705 Verde Dr Var Front Yard Sctbackdoc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-42-0S
Hearing Date: November 10,2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
605 Oriole Lane
PETITIONERS:
Edward and Bernice Lawson
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 26, 2005
PIN#:
03-27 -315-007 -0000
REQUEST:
Conditional Use- Unenclosed Porch in front yard
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Marlys Haaland
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jill Baty, Planning Intern
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Edward "Skip" Lawson and Bernice Lawson
Acting Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Keith Youngquist moved to approve
the minutes, of the October 27, 2005 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0, with Leo Floros abstaining. At 8:08 pm, after hearing two other cases, Acting Chairman Rogers
introduced Case No. PZ-42-05, a Conditional Use request for an unenclosed porch. He said that the case is
Planning and Zoning Commission final and the Commission will be making the final vote tonight.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the south
side of Oriole Lane, between Prospect Manor and Forest Avenues, and contains a one-story single-family
residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and is bordered
on all sides by the Rl District.
Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is in the process of constructing an addition to the rear of the house. They
do not plan to add a second story to the house, but would like to construct an unenclosed porch to update the look
of the house. The proposed porch would extend almost 20' along the front of the house and would consist of a
concrete base and wood and brick posts. The porch would extend 6' from the house, resulting in a 25.5' front
yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval.
Ms. Connolly further explained that the existing home complies with the Village's zoning regulations, but the
proposed porch will encroach into the required front yard. The table in the Staff Report compares the Petitioner's
proposal to the Rl Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. It shows that the porch will encroach
into the front setback but the Subject Property will meet all other zoning regulations.
Richard Rogers, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 10,2005
PZ-42-05
Page 2
Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the
proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public
streets. Also, the proposed Conditional Use would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve
the following motion:
"To 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 605 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-42-05."
Ms. Connolly stated the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case.
The Commission had no questions for staff. At the direction of Acting Chairman Rogers, Edward "Skip"
Lawson, 605 Oriole Lane was sworn in. Mr. Lawson thanked staff for their presentation and said they look
forward to adding the porch to their home, if the Conditional Use is approved.
Acting Chairman Rogers asked if there were any further questions. Hearing none, the hearing was closed at 8: 14
pm. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the proposed unenclosed porch, as submitted by the Petitioner
for the residence at 605 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-42-05, with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed.
Ronald Roberts seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floras, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 5-0.
Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary
C:\Documcnts and SCHings\kdewis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet FHcs\OLK2\PZ-42-05 605 Oriole Lane CU Porch.doc