Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/2006 P&Z minutes 21-06 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-21-06 Hearing Date: July 27,2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2838 S. Briarwood Drive East PETITIONERS: Bruno and Karen Zaucha PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2006 PIN NUMBERS: 08-22-200-128-0000 & 08-22-200-051-0000 REQUESTS: Variations (Rear Yard Setback and Lot Coverage) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jennifer Walden, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruno and Karen Zaucha Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Leo Floros moved to approve the minutes of the June 22, 2006 meeting and Mary Johnson seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0, with Joseph Donnelly abstaining from the vote. Leo Floros made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17 -06 to the August 24, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case Number PZ-21-06 at 7:43 p.m.; a request to construct a patio requiring relief from the required setback and lot coverage limitation. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is comprised of two (2) parcels. It is located on the west side of Briarwood Drive East, south of Algonquin Road 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. Ms. Connolly presented pictures of the existing site conditions and noted that the Subject Property abuts a private lake, Lake Briarwood, and that the size of the lot exceeds the minimum lot size required by zoning regulations. She said that the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and was later annexed into Mount Prospect. She said that the Petitioner's proposed improvements include removing the wood deck that abuts Lake Briarwood and replacing it with a brick paver patio. The Petitioner does not propose to remove any other pavement as part of this project. The Petitioner proposes to construct the patio in the same location as the wood deck; however, the patio would be larger than the deck. The proposed patio would measure 14'x30' whereas the existing wood deck measures 5.6' X 27'. Variation approval is required because the patio would encroach into the required 15' rear setback. Also, the site will exceed the R1 District's 45% lot coverage limitation. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 27,2006 PZ-21-06 Page 2 Ms. Connolly reviewed a table that compares the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 District's Bulk Requirements. She said that the table shows that the Subject Property does not currently comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the wood deck and the attached deck encroach into the required setbacks. In addition, the Subject Property is not a legal lot of record as defined by the Village because it consists of two (2) parcels. She said that Staff conducted a site visit to the Subject Property. One of the objectives was to determine whether there was an opportunity to reduce lot coverage by removing existing pavement. Ms. Connolly showed a slide of the existing service walk along the side of the house. She noted that it appears this service walk could not be easily removed. She showed slides of the attached deck that is to remain in addition to a slide of the backyard. Ms. Connolly showed a slide of the wood deck the Petitioner proposes to replace and the area to be improved with a brick paver patio. She said that Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire to provide a paved path from the house to the lake, and that the current grassy area between the house and the wood deck may seem insignificant. However, allowing a site that already exceeds the Village's lot coverage limitation to then further increase the amount of lot coverage for a convenience issue does not meet the definition of a hardship as defined by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Although the Variation request may be perceived as a 'like-for-like' replacement, it does not qualify for the Minor Variation process because the encroachment exceeds the 40% criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the site includes more than two (2) accessory structures because the pea gravel area counts as an accessory structure. Therefore, the request requires review by the Planning & Zoning Commission, who will make a recommendation to the Village Board. The Village Board's decision is final for the request. As the Petitioner explains in their application, the Subject Property is a lake front property and the Village's regulations do not include provisions for this type of development. In addition, the Subject Property was developed under County regulations, which creates challenges when the site is later required to conform to another jurisdiction's regulations. On the other hand, the Petitioner's request to increase the size of the proposed patio is their decision and not a consequence of the former unincorporated designation. Lot coverage is an important consideration because it impacts the aesthetics of a property as well as runoff. In this situation, Lake Briarwood is a floodplain, and portions of the Subject Property are located in the floodplain. While the Petitioner could meet the requirements when building in a floodplain by providing compensatory storage, the Subject Property has limited opportunities for the required compensatory storage. Allowing.a larger patio further impacts this situation. Staff found that replacing the wood deck with a similar size patio would meet the standards for a Variation because the site was developed under County regulations and the site would maintain the existing amount of lot coverage. The Village's Engineering Division did not object to locating the patio in the same location and maintaining the existing amount of lot coverage; they did object to an increase in the amount of lot coverage. Ms. Connolly reiterated Engineering's comments from the original permit application submitted in April. It was noted that the submittal did not contain grading information or compensatory storage calculations for any fill to be placed in the floodplain. Until these comments are addressed, Engineering cannot approve the patio for construction, even if the lot coverage issue is resolved. Ms. Connolly said that Staff supports a request to maintain a 0' rear setback for a replacement structure if the size of the replacement structure does not increase the amount of the existing lot coverage, which is 48%, as well as the permit submittal addressing Engineering's comments for the original permit application. Unfortunately, the Petitioner proposes a replacement structure larger than the existing wood deck. Staff asked the Petitioner earlier in the zoning process if they would consider an alternative design, but the Petitioner opted to pursue the design as submitted. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 27, 2006 PZ-21-06 Page 3 The Variation requests for the 0' rear setback for a patio and for 52.5% lot coverage as submitted, fails to meet the standards for a Variation contained in the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is increasing the intensity of the required Variations to replace the wood deck. In addition, the request is based on convenience rather than hardship. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 14'x30' brick paver patio to encroach into the required 15' setback and to approve a Variation to allow 52.5% lot coverage, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan, date stamped June 30, 2006, for the residence at 2838 Briarwood Drive East, Case Number PZ-21-06." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, and concluded Staffs report. Chairman Rogers asked if there had been discussion regarding the compensatory storage requirement for the site. He said that the site looks short on space for such storage. Ms. Connolly reiterated that this was Engineering Staffs concern while reviewing the deck permit. Both the Engineering and Planning departments notified the petitioner of storage and setback issues during the permit review process. Mr. Rogers then asked if replacing the existing wood deck with a patio of the same size would be allowed. Ms. Connolly stated that replacing the deck with a patio of the same dimensions would be permitted without a zoning variation required. Joseph Donnelly asked when the area was incorporated into the Village. Ms. Connolly stated that she believes it was in the mid-1970's. Mr. Donnelly also asked if because the proposed structure crosses parcel lines, a Plat of Consolidation would be required if the Variation was approved. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff would ask, as a condition of approval, that the lot be consolidated into a one lot subdivision. Leo Floros asked if the property is actually two lots. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property is located on two parcels; that the property consists of halves of two lots of record. She said that the development of this property is very unique. Mr. Floros asked for clarification on the Engineering Departments comments. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Department would support maintaining the same amount of lot coverage; however, the petitioner needs to provide information on compensatory storage. If the variation was approved to increase lot coverage, the Petitioner would need to provide information on increased compensatory storage. Mr. FIoros asked if that is even possible. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner would need to provide that information during the permit process. She stated that Engineering had concerns that the required compensatory storage would be tight on this particular site. Property owner Bruno Zaucha, 2838 Briarwood Drive East, Arlington Heights, TIlinois was sworn in. Mr. Zaucha stated that he understands the Village has no issues with the proposed O-foot rear setback, and that the concern is the increased lot coverage. He stated that they would like to remove the 150 square foot deck and replace it with a 450 square foot brick patio. Mr. Zaucha stated the purpose for the size increase is to not only accommodate tables and chairs they would like to use, but also for the aesthetic transformation from the seawall to his patio. He said that neighbors believe the proposed change would be a nice improvement to the property. He asked the Commission for understanding in the nature of this request and hopes they approve his request. Mr. Floros asked if the patio would be made of brick pavers. Mr. Zaucha stated that the proposed patio would be made of brick pavers. Mr. Floros asked if there is runoff from the brick patio. Mr. Rogers stated that there is a minimal amount of runoff from a brick patio. There was further discussion regarding materials that could be used in place of brick pavers. Mr. Donnelly asked when the seawall was installed. Mr. Zaucha stated that the current wall was installed earlier this year when the old seawall collapsed into the lake. Mr. Donnelly stated that the seawall was not indicated on the survey. Mr. Zaucha said that the seawall and patio were both submitted for permit this year. The lot coverage issue with the brick paver patio arose during the permit process. Engineering approved the replacement of the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting July 27,2006 PZ-21-06 Page 4 seawall; however, the brick patio was denied for the previously mentioned concerns. There was further discussion regarding the Petitioner's permit process and replacement of the seawall. There was further discussion regarding alternate methods for the replacement of the decking. The Commissioners discussed various materials and alternate design of the remaining flatwork on the property to meet lot coverage requirements. Chairman Rogers asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission regarding this case. Hearing no response, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:02 p.m. The Commissioners held further general discussion regarding the engineering and lot coverage issues of this project. The Commission suggested that this request be tabled until the August Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Tabling the request gives the Petitioner time to revise his plans, addressing the lot coverage issues and engineering concerns. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Zaucha if he was agreeable to making changes to the request and returning to the August 24,200 meeting. Mr. Zaucha agreed. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue case PZ-12-06 to the August 24, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Leo FIoros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Rogers; NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:20 p.m., seconded by Mary Johnson. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Inlemet Files\OLK6B\PZ-21-06 2838 S Briarwood Drive East. variations.doc