Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2007 P&Z minutes 08-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-08-07 Hearing Date: April 26, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 9 North School Street PETITIONER: Dave D. Dornseif PUBLICATION DATE: April 11, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03 - 34-41 7 -004-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Front Yard Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mr. & Mrs. David Dornseif Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 22, 2007 and April 12, 2007 meetings and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0 with Mary McCabe abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ-08-07, a request for a Variation at 9 N. School Street, at 8:57 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the east side of School Street, north of Central Road, 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. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and exceeds the minimum lot size for a property zoned RI. Ms. Connolly said the exhibits illustrate the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which include the addition of an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch would extend 8-feet from the existing house, resulting in a 21' 11" setback, as the house currently has a 29' 11" 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. Ms. Connolly stated that the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required 30-foot front yard. Also, there is a 204 square foot parking pad located in a required side yard. However, the existing structures are legal nonconformities and allowed to remain. The proposed unenclosed porch requires relief from the Rl District's bulk regulations for the front yard setback. The project would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly said the standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized these findings: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-08-07 Page 2 . 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. Ms. Connolly stated 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 8-feet further into the existing setback. Also, the proposed improvement would increase the lot coverage to 45.9% which exceeds the 45% limitation. She said Staff researched the adjacent properties' setbacks and found that most houses are setback approximately 30-feet from the front property line. Ms. Connolly said prior to accepting the Variation application, Staff met with the Petitioner and explained that reducing the footprint of the porch so there would be no less than a 25-foot front yard setback would require Conditional Use approval instead of a Variation. The Petitioner decided to pursue the Variation and explains in their application that the additional depth is necessary to accommodate traditional outdoor-style rocking chairs. Ms. Connolly stated that the front yard is typical of most lots in the Village and the proposed porch would create a front setback significantly different from the neighboring properties. Also, the additional porch depth would result in 45.9% lot coverage which exceeds the 45% lot coverage limitation. She said the Petitioner does have the option of removing the 204 square foot parking pad, which would reduce the lot coverage to 44%. While the proposed design is aesthetically pleasing and Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire to improve the property, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said although the Petitioner's request to have an unenclosed porch encroach into the front yard may be an attractive enhancement to the house, the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 21' 11" front yard for an unenclosed porch and to allow 45.9% lot coverage, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 9 N. School Street, Case Number PZ-08-07." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek called for questions for Staff. Richard Rogers asked if the Petitioner were to stay within the 25-foot setback, they would have a 4' 11" front porch; Ms. Connolly confirmed that is correct. Mr. Rogers asked if that would also get the project under the 45% lot coverage requirement. Ms. Connolly said it would be close, but she would have to verifY that number. Ronald Roberts asked Staff to point out where the parking pad is on the property. Ms. Connolly identified the parking pad on the site plan. There were no further questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in the Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Dave Dornseif of 9 N. School Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Dornseif stated that a 4' 11" porch is impractical for what they plan on using it for. He stated that a similar variation was granted for another property in the Village last year and they compare their proposed project to that home. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-08-07 Page 3 Mr. Dornseif stated their home currently has an 8-foot front stoop and they developed their proposed plan off of this stoop. Chairperson Juracek asked if the 8-foot stoop is conforming. Ms. Connolly stated that the stoop is non-conforming, and that Village Code currently allows the stoop to extend only 5-feet from the house. Mr. Dornseif said he does realize this is something out of the norm and therefore, he petitioned his neighbors that are in-sight of their front porch and those neighbors are in support of the project. He said there was one neighbor they were unable to reach, but the rest of the neighbors were supportive. Chairperson Juracek asked if there is any differentiation between the previous case the Petitioner mentioned and this case. Ms. Connolly stated that in the previous case, the unenclosed porch was intended to unifY a second floor addition with the existing home. Also, that Petitioner requested a 5-foot porch, but the existing front setback was 27'8". Chairperson Juracek asked if the Petitioner had considered reducing the foot print of the porch to reduce the lot coverage. Ms. Dornseif said they did consider reducing the porch; however a 5-foot porch does not allow for much usable space with the furniture they intend to use. The Petitioner is hoping for a larger porch to accommodate rocking chairs they inherited from their family. Leo Floros asked if there are any other additions or remodeling going on at the home. The Petitioner's stated that they are only adding the porch. Richard Rogers asked how the petitioner gets into the garage. Mr. Dornseif states that the front garage is a drive- thru. Ronald Roberts asked how the Petitioner uses the parking pad. Mr. Dornseif states that in the pictures there was a boat parked there, but the boat has been sold and there are presently children's toys on the parking pad. Mr. Roberts said there may be some trade-off with the removal of the parking pad to allow for the porch. There was general discussion regarding alternatives to reducing lot coverage. Joseph Donnelly states there are two issues; the lot coverage and the setback variation. He said he would like to see the project stay within the lot coverage guidelines. Chairperson Juracek said the Variation has more strict standards for approval and that basing the approval on the need to accommodate large furniture is not a valid basis for approval. There was general discussion regarding lot coverage, porch size and similar porches in the Village. Chairperson Juracek asked the Petitioner if they would like to come back with revised drawings to reduce lot coverage and include a 5-foot porch, to obtain a Conditional Use. There was general discussion regarding a Conditional Use versus a Variation. Mr. Dornseif asked if the petition from the neighbors showing support of the project helps his case. Mr. Rogers stated that it does help, but each time an exception is made, it creates precedent for another project. He said it is the Commission's responsibility to enforce zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly clarified that a porch scaled back 5-feet would need to go before the Village Board for a Variation because the 25-foot front yard setback is not met. She said anything less than a 25-foot front yard setback would require going before the Village Board. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 26, 2007 PZ-08-07 Page 4 The Petitioners asked if they agreed to a 5-foot porch and meet the 45% lot coverage this evening, if the Commission would approve the Case for recommendation to the Village Board. The Commission explained that regardless of their vote tonight, this case will go before the Village Board because of the Variation request. Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:22 p.m. There was further discussion and Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-08-07, a request for a Variation with the condition that the unenclosed porch only encroach I-inch, creating a 24'-11" front yard set back, or reducing the porch to have no less than a 25-foot front yard setback, and that the entire site maintain no more than 45% lot coverage. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing three additional cases and discussing the Zoning Ordinance update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 10:48 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C'\Documenls and Senings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ.08-07 9 N School-doc