Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout 3.2 PZ-15-17 / 617 Albion Lane / Daniel McCue / Variation to overall lot coverage requirement4/28/2020 BoardDocs® Pro Agenda Item Details Meeting - MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNINGICOMMISSION Category Subject PZ -15-17 / 617 Albion Lane / Daniel McCue / Variation overall lot coverage requirement Access Public Tye Action Absolute Date Sep 28, 2017 Recommended Action Staff finds that the variation request does not meet the variation standards as listed in the Zoning Code and that granting such request would not be in the best interest of the Villag Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following •• • • "A variation to allow maximum lot coverage of fifty percent (50%)., allowing for the construction of a patio as per the site plan dated September 12, 2017." 1 Public Content Information The Subject Property is located on the south side of Albion Lane between Forest Avenue and Prospect Manor Avenue. The Subject Property is zoned 1 Single -Family Residence District and borders the RI Single -Family Residence District on all sides. The Subject Property measures over ten thousand square feet (10,000 sq. ft.) and includes a single family home, detached garage, and pool with related improvements. The Petitioner, Daniel McCue, proposes to perform several site improvements, including constructing a new patio, and is seeking a variation from the maximum lot coverage requirement. The site plan indicates the lot would be developed with fifty percent (50%) total impervious surfaces when the Village code allows a maximum of forty-five percent (45%). The proposed site plan indicates the patio would measure four hundred seventy square feet (470 sq. ft.). The Petitioner is removing an existing non- conforming patio and deck that measure five hundred six square feet (506 sq. ft.) as part of a permit for a new detached garage issued on September 8, 2017 and would like to install a new patio in a different location, triggering lot coverage compliance. General Zoning Compliance The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. Existing structures encroach into required yards. The existing pool encroaches into the required six and one-half foot (6.5') side yard setback and fifteen foot (15') rear yard setback. The previous detached garage encroached into the five foot (5') public utility easement and exceeded the maximum size of six hundred seventy two square feet (672 sq. ft.). The previous lot coverage was fifty-two percent (52%). The Petitioner reduced the lot coverage to forty-five percent (45%) by installing a new garage that is smaller in size and moved the new garage closer to the front of the lot, narrowing the driveway, and removing the pool deck and patio. The proposed improvements do not comply with the Village Code regulations. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. The italicized text denotes items that do not comply with the Village Code's regulations. Coe Requirements revios ExistingProposed Accessory Structure Setbacks: Min. Pool ear () 15 Mi H ' No Change No Change Pool Side (W) Min. 5' No Change No Change https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 1/3 4/28/2020 BoardDocs® Pro The standards for a variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: 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 states that granting this variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, be detrimental to the public welfare or other property, and that it will not impair the supply of light and air to adjacent properties. The Petitioner states that their daughter who has cerebral palsy does not have the ability to sit or stand unassisted and is confined to a power wheel chair for mobility and body support. The Petitioner states that the deck that will be removed is not accessible to their daughter because it has two steps that her wheelchair cannot traverse. The Petitioner states that they want to replace the pool deck and patio with a new patio that can be used as an outdoor family gathering space that their daughter can access. The Petitioner states that the variance request is unique to their property based on the specific disability of their daughter. Further, they state that the purpose of this request is not based on the desire to increase financial gain, but to allow the family to remain at the residence. While staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire to install a new patio in a location closer to the house with better accessibility, there are no unique conditions or hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, it appears additional impervious surface could be removed to better meet the lot coverage restriction. Finally, it should be noted that 617 Albion Lane is in a neighborhood known to have frequent street flooding, particularly along Forest Avenue. Any impervious surface in excess of the acceptable lot coverage will increase the stormwater runoff and aggravate the existing flooding in the area. For these reasons, Staff does not support the requested variation to exceed maximum lot coverage. Staff finds that the variation request does not meet the variation standards as listed in the Zoning Code and that granting such request would not be in the best interest of the Village. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: Alternatives I. "A variation to allow maximum lot coverage of fifty percent (50%), as per the site plan dated September 12, 2017." 2. Action at discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Application.pdf (292 KB) Survey.pdf (138 KB) Site Plan.pdf (421 KB) Pergola-pdf (106 KB) Responses to Standards-pdf (74 KB) Neighborhood Petition.pdf (85 KB) https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 2/3 4/28/2020 Administrative Content Executive Content BoardDocs® Pro https://go.boarddocs.com/il/vomp/Board.nsf/Private?open&login 3/3