The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7. MEETING NOTICES 3/22/2006 MAYOR VILLAGE MANAGER Irvana K. Wilks Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Village of Mount Prospect Timothy J. Corcoran M. Lisa Angell Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Community Development Department Richard M. Lohrstorfer Phone: 847/818-5328 Michaele Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Michael A. ZadelTDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mount Prospect Village Hall Thursday 50 S. Emerson Street March 23, 2006 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTESOF FEBRUARY 23, 2006 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-04-06 / 916 S. Elm Street / Variation & Conditional Use / Milos Residence IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-40-05 / 1800 W. Central Road / Convert existing building to condominium ownership. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-05-06 / 999 N. Elmhurst Road (Randhurst Shopping Center) / Panda Express / Conditional Use (Amend Planned Unit Development approval to allow for a restaurant with a drive-thru on an outlot). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-06-06 / 801 W. Kensington Road (Prospect High School) / School District 214 / Variation NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (Antenna height). VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. 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-04-06 Hearing Date: February 23, 2006 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: February 8, 2006 REQUEST: Variation – Front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: ChairArlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES : Jerry Milos Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 26, 2006 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Leo Floros made a motion to continue Case No. PZ-40-05 to the March 23, 2006 meeting and Richard Rogers seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-04-06, a Variation for the front yard setback. She said that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision was final for the request. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Elm Street, south of Sunset Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RX District to the north, east, and south and by the R1 District to the west. She said the Subject Property has an irregular shape and measures 19,769 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot size required by zoning regulations. The front setback of the existing home varies, ranging from 35’4” to 38’ although the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40’ setback. Ms. Connolly presented exhibits illustrating the Petitioner’s proposed improvements to the existing split level home, which include adding a second story to portions of the house as well as modifying the existing second story. She said the proposed second story addition would maintain the existing setback of the home, which encroaches 2-feet into the required front yard. The proposed addition to the existing garage would be stepped back and comply with the required 40’ setback. However, Variation approval is required for the second story addition since portions of it will encroach into the required front yard and maintain the 38’ setback, when the Zoning Ordinance requires 40’. Ms. Connolly also stated that the Petitioner proposes to redesign the existing covered entryway to blend the addition with the existing house. Although the proposed redesigned structure has the same footprint as the existing covered entryway, which measures 13’6” x 4’8”, the new structure is considered an unenclosed porch. She said the new structure is interpreted differently and considered a porch because the roof is changed extensively and is a more defined structure, as opposed to the existing entryway that consists of essentially extending the roof over the stoop. She also said elements of the porch, such as the columns and new windows, are designed so that the character of the structures is no longer comparable. The proposed unenclosed porch will encroach into the front yard 4’8” resulting in a 35’4” setback, which requires Conditional Use approval. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair PZ-02-06 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 23, 2006 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the existing home does not comply with the Village’s zoning regulations because the house and entryway encroach into the required front yard. However, this is considered a legal nonconforming situation and is allowed to remain unchanged. She stated that the proposed second story addition and porch requires a Variation from the RX District’s bulk regulations and Conditional Use approval because the structures will encroach into the front yard setback. The project would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff conducted a site inspection and observed that several homes on the 900 block of south Elm Street appear to be located closer to the lot line than the required 40’ setback. She said Staff researched the setbacks by examining plats of survey on file with the Building Division and using PVWeb, and found that only 3 of the 12 homes on this block met the 40’ setback. Also, several of the plats of survey on file denoted a 30’ front setback. Ms. Connolly said Staff conducted further research and found that the block was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1962. Most, if not all of the homes were already built when the Village annexed the area. She stated that the Subject Property was originally zoned R1, but rezoned to RX a few years later. She presented an exhibit listing the existing setbacks for the surrounding properties and it showed that the Petitioner’s request is in keeping with setbacks for the surrounding properties. Ms. Connolly gave a summary of the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said the Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing home to create additional living space. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40-foot front yard for the Subject Property. However, the existing residence does not meet this requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct a second story addition at the existing setbacks. She said the Petitioner met with Staff to discuss an alternative design, but the Petitioner felt that the type of house (split-level) precluded a different design. Ms. Connolly stated that the Building Commissioner reviewed the request and concurred that stepping the addition back 2-feet to meet the 40’ setback would be extremely difficult because the house was a split-level design. Significant engineering would be required to match the point load levels, and the character of the house could be adversely impacted if the second story addition met the 40’ setback. Ms. Connolly said a significant number of the surrounding properties do not comply with the 40’ setback. She stated that the houses were most likely constructed in accordance with Cook County regulations, so the nonconforming setback situation is not a result of actions by the current property owner. Staff found that the Petitioner’s request to allow the second story addition to maintain the existing 38’ setback would not impact the neighborhood character or adversely impact other properties. Ms. Connolly gave a summary of the standards for Conditional Uses as listed the Village Zoning Ordinance. She stated that the proposed porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets. She further stated that the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner’s request to maintain the existing front setback for the proposed second story addition and the proposed unenclosed porch will be an attractive enhancement to the house. The Variation request meets the standards for a Variation contained in the Zoning Ordinance due to the house being a split-level design and property being developed under County regulations. She also stated that the unenclosed porch meets the standards for Conditional Use approval because the request will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood and will ‘blend’ the addition with the existing house. rlene Juracek, Acting Chair PZ-02-06 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 23, 2006 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stated that based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 38’ front setback for a second story addition and to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard resulting in a 35’4” setback, as shown on the Petitioner’s site plan and elevations prepared by American Landmark Architecture Associates, dated January 23, 2006, for the residence at 916 S. Elm Street, Case No. PZ-04-06." The Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement, and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision is final for unenclosed porches. Chairperson Juracek called for questions of Staff. Keith Youngquist asked which part of this addition would encroach into the required 40’ setback. Ms. Connolly stated that a small portion of the second story addition would need the Variation to meet the Village Zoning Ordinance. She showed exhibits demonstrating the new areas forward of the existing roofline. Further clarification was called for from the homeowner. At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Jerry Milos, the homeowner residing at 916 S. Elm Street, Mount Prospect, IL was sworn in. Mr. Milos further explained which portion of the second story addition is encroaching into the required 40’ setback. The Commission’s questions were adequately answered. Mr. Milos thanked Staff for their presentation. He gave a brief history of the home and his family, explaining the need for additional living space. He further stated that these plans are a result of working with an architect and reviewing several options. The Commission complimented Mr. Milos on the design. Chairperson Juracek called for further questions. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:47 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the Variation and Conditional Use, as presented, Case No. PZ-04-06, Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. This case was Planning and Zoning Commission final. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 7:48 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary /it C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-04-06 916 Elm - Variation.doc MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Phone: (847) 392-6000 Paul Wm. Hoefert Fax: (847) 818-5336 A. John Korn TDD: (847) 392-6064 Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Village of Mount Prospect Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY MARCH 23, 2006 HAS BEEN CANCELLED