Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/2008 P&Z minutes 05-08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-08 Hearing Date: January 24, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1750 Azalea Place PETITIONERS: Larry and Joan Schrambeck PUBLICATION DATE: January 9, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-303-027 -0000 REQUEST: Variation - second driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Andrew Skic, Building Inspector Ryan Kast, Administrative Assistant INTERESTED PARTIES: Larry Schrambeck, Joan Schrambeck, Garry Schrambeck, David Gates, Sheila Gates, Bob Guthrie, Chris Guthrie, Rosemarie Kern, Ted Kern, Phil Leong, Chris Me Laugh in, Marcy Mueller, Ron Mueller, Steve Vels, Frederick Brill Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 3-0 with Chairman Rogers abstaining. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue Case Number PZ-38-07 to the February 28, 2008 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-05-08, a request for a Variation for a second driveway at 1750 Azalea Place, at 9:32 p.m. Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Basswood Lane, between Euclid A venue and Azalea Place, and contains a single family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family and is bordered by the R1 District on all sides. The Subject Property was developed under Cook County jurisdiction and annexed into Mount Prospect in the early 1970s. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner currently parks a recreational vehicle on a gravel pad, located in the backyard along Basswood Lane. Sec. 14.2209 of the Village Code allows recreational vehicles to be parked in a residential district but only if the vehicle is parked on an approved driveway or parking pad; gravel is not an approved surface and not permitted. Staff learned of the gravel pad during a Systematic Inspection and contacted the Petitioner about removing the gravel pad. The Petitioner proposes to install a second driveway to park the vehicle on in order to comply with Village regulations. However, Sec. 14.2215 of the Village Code allows only one Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 2 driveway per lot. As the Petitioner already has a driveway in the front of the house on Azalea Place, Variation approval is required for the second driveway on Basswood Lane. Ms. Connolly showed a table that compared the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 single family residence district's bulk requirements. It showed that the subject property complies with the Village's Zoning Regulations, with the exception of the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff reviewed old aerial photos and could not determine when the gravel was installed. In conversations with the Petitioner, Staff learned the gravel was laid around 1976. Also, the Village does not have a record of construction for a gravel pad. Since the gravel pad was installed without the benefit of a permit and it was constructed after the property was annexed into Mount Prospect, it is not considered a legal non-conformity and is not allowed to remain. Ms. Connolly said that 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. Ms. Connolly summarized 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 ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes to install a curb cut and driveway on Basswood Lane and construct a driveway in lieu of the existing gravel pad. The recreational vehicle would be parked on an approved surface, which would comply with Village Codes. Prior to applying for the Variation, the Petitioner researched alternatives such as parking the vehicle in front of the house on the existing driveway. They found that the vehicle may extend over the sidewalk, and that the vehicle would be highly visible in this location. They researched selling the vehicle, but found that option to be financially prohibitive. They also contacted storage facilities to determine whether it was feasible to park the vehicle off-site. They found the cost to be somewhat significant, but another consideration was the inadequate level of security the facilities provide. Based on this, the Petitioner opted to apply for the Variation for the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's application included a petition signed by several neighbors and an email from a neighbor, both supporting the Petitioner's request, and the email noting how minimal of an impact the driveway would have on the neighborhood. However, Staff found that the request for a second driveway was not based on a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, but would serve as a convenience to the Petitioner. Staff appreciates the Petitioner's desire to store the vehicle on-site, which is permitted by Village Code, but in order to do so, a second driveway is needed, requiring relief from the Village's Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has taken considerable steps to screen the vehicle in this location and would modify the surface it is parked on, but the lot is typical of most lots in the Village, and the request would not be unique to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated based on this analysis, the Variation request for a second driveway fails to meet the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation allowing a second driveway be installed off of Basswood Lane as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit date stamped January 17,2008, for the property at 1750 Azalea Place." Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly asked if a circular driveway was considered with a drive to the backyard so the RV could be parked on the side of the house while being fenced in. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner wanted to screen the vehicle as much as possible and that is why they wanted to keep it in the current location. The Petitioner did consider selling the current vehicle and purchasing a smaller RV to park on the driveway, but there was concern that the neighbors would see it as an eyesore. Chairman Rogers said he would be concerned if the RV was parked on the side of the house as the entire vehicle as opposed to only seeing the front. Further discussion continued whether or not the entire side of the RV could be seen from Euclid. Chairman Rogers swore in Garry Schrambeck, 2205 Oak Leaf Lane, Lake Villa, IL. Mr. Schrambeck was speaking on behalf of his parents', the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck stated that they are asking for a Variation to install a second driveway with access from Basswood Lane into the backyard of the residence. Currently, there is a gravel pad that is neat and free of weeds. The Petitioners have parked RV vehicles since 1975 and have never received one complaint from neighbors or Village employees. The location of the residence is within a few blocks of the Village Manager and several trustees who have never filed complaints. Mr. Schrambeck said in the summer of 2007, they were informed that his parents were in violation of Code 14.2209 that took effect in 1993. They called for an inspector and met with Robert Roels. According to Mr. Schrambeck, Mr. Roels stated that the backyard was kept nice and neat and believed there would be no reason why the gravel pad would not be grandfathered in since it has been there since 1975. He said Mr. Roels would provide a follow-up after speaking with his boss. He stated Mr. Roels would ask for this RV be grandfathered for the next 10-15 years and the next homeowner would not be granted use. Mr. Schrambeck said no response ever came from the Village. He stated that the Petitioners are not refusing to put in a second driveway to conform to Village Code. They are willing to pay for this major out-of-pocket expense. Mr. Schrambeck said a second driveway would require a second depression, but only one depression is allowed per Village Code. He has spotted several homes in the neighborhood that contain a second depression (circular driveway). He said the Petitioners' RV should not be an issue due to all the depressions. He continued by stating that the RV is on the road most of the year. Over the past 36 years, the Petitioners have never been in violation of any Village Codes and they're not ready to start now. Mr. Schrambeck continued by stating the Petitioners should be grandfathered in and be granted approval installing a second driveway. Parking the RV in the front of the home would be an eyesore and it would also block the viewing of a bus stop for neighbors. He said that they have letters and a petition from 25 neighbors stating that the RV should be left where it is at. The Petitioners have explored the options of storing the RV off site, but the cost, security, and loading/unloading process would take its toll on the Petitioners. Mr. Schrambeck said that several Village inspectors have been to the house over the years regarding the fence and shed, but nothing has been said about the RV. He said the Petitioners have not kept the RV a secret from the Village as a vehicle sticker has been purchased over the past 32 years. Mr. Schrambeck concluded by stating that this would be a travesty if the Petitioners lost this RV at this point in their life. Chairman Rogers asked that if the Petitioners were willing to make a permanent parking pad that contained concrete or asphalt and would run it to the street if allowed. Mr. Schrambeck agreed. Chairman Rogers said he saw the property with the gate. He stated that the RV could be seen, but it is not intrusive. He said something needs to be unique in order for a hardship. Chairman Rogers said the property is unique being bordered by three streets: Euclid, Basswood, and Azalea. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers swore in Ronald Mueller, 1780 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Mueller said he has resided at this address for 36 years and stated that the RV is concealed. He stated that the second driveway is not a bad idea, but it would lower the value of the home. He said the gravel pad has been maintained by the Petitioners and cannot be seen from the street. He concluded by stating the property and the motor home are both well maintained by the Petitioners. Chairman Rogers swore in Robert Guthrie, 1784 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Guthrie has resided at this address for 16.5 years. He said the RV is not an eyesore and he has never had a problem. He does not understand why a second driveway cannot be installed. Chairman Rogers swore in Frederick Brill, 1762 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Brill stated that he wrote a letter to the Commission. He stated that the Petitioners have been able to drive over the parkway all these years without damaging it. He said the Petitioners maintain the parkway. He does not see gravel and mentioned that there use to be trees along Basswood Lane that would hide the RV even more. These trees were diseased and eventually removed by the Village. He hopes that the Petitioners could be grandfathered in with a cement or asphalt pad without a driveway to the street and cutting of the curb. Mr. Brill concluded by stating that if a second driveway was installed, this would create a loss of parking on Basswood and would detract the beauty of an unbroken parkway. Chairman Rogers said that a driveway would be required. He said that they can't allow the Petitioners to continue driving over the grass and the curb. He realizes that the Petitioners have done a great job maintaining the parkway without any damage. Chairman Rogers swore in Chris McLaughin, 1756 Azalea Place, Mount Prospect, IL. She said she hopes this case could be grandfathered in. She is concerned with the safety if a second driveway is built. She stated that cars would use the driveway apron as a quick turnaround. Ms. McLaughin also mentioned that if the RV was on the front driveway, it would block her view of the bus stop for her children. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any provisions to take action on grandfathering the existing conditions. Ms. Connolly said no because of the way the case was published and the actual request. She said the request came in for a second driveway, not to grandfather in the gravel pad. Ms. Connolly stated that she has reviewed this case with the Petitioners. The Village Code gradually evolved over time from requiring a parking pad to be a dustless hard surface, no gravel and no clay, to where it arrived to today requiring concrete, pavers, or asphalt. Ms. Connolly said she discussed gravel pads with Public Works and they stated that gravel has been a problem over the years in the storm sewers. She appreciates the Petitioners being diligent in maintaining the parkway, but the Village cannot allow one person to be the exception, as ruts in the parkway are a significant property maintenance Issue. Mr. Donnelly asked what year the property was annexed into the Village. Ms. Connolly confirmed the year was 1971 and she was told that the pad was installed in 1976. She said Staff could not grandfather this in because the pad did not exist when the property was annexed. Discussion continued amongst the Commission and Staff regarding the grandfathering option. Mr. Donnelly asked if there could be a Conditional Use on disabilities. Ms. Connolly replied that a condition of approval could be placed on a Variation. Mr. Donnelly said he would like to leave the property the way it is; Ronald Roberts agreed with Mr. Donnelly. Mr. Roberts stated that the Schram becks sound like wonderful people and neighbors. He continued by stating that a driveway would be there forever and a hardship would decrease the property value. He would like to find a way for the Petitioners not to install a second driveway. The way the case is written is to approve a second driveway, Mr. Rogers said he would vote to approve this. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 5 Mr. Donnelly asked if they can hold off voting tonight and have the Petitioners come back with a new proposal. He wanted to know if republishing was an option. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioners could withdraw this case and submit another application. Mr. Roberts suggested that the Commission vote on the second driveway and the Petitioners could always change their plan within a certain limit of time. Ms. Connolly confirmed that the Variation is good for one year. Mr. Donnelly asked what recourse the Petitioners would have if the Commission voted on the second driveway. Ms. Connolly said that she could talk to the Village attorney about grandfathering, but as she understood the issue, there was no basis to grandfather the parking pad in as it was not there when the property was annexed. Chairman Rogers said he cannot support allowing the Petitioners to drive over the parkway, it has to be an approved surface. Mr. Roberts stated that the Commission is approving one option for the Petitioners, a second driveway. He stated that the Petitioners could seek other options. Mr. Roberts continued by mentioning that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have the authority to say whether or not the Petitioners can drive over the parkway. He said the case being presented is for a second driveway, whether they implement this option is up to the Petitioners or the Village Board to decided. Mr. Donnelly asked if the driveway could only be where the tires are, so the driveway would not have to be the whole width. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code allows paving strips. There was general discussion regarding if paving strips were present, there would be less likelihood for cars to use as a turnaround. Mr. Schrambeck wanted clarification that the Petitioners could just do strips for the tires rather than do a complete apron. Further discussion involved grandfathering in the RV and the 1993 Zoning Code. Ms. Connolly stated that the 1993 Zoning Code was updated to create provisions for RVs to be parked in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Donnelly followed up this point by stating before 1993, the Village Code did not have provisions for parking RVs in residential neighborhoods. The Petitioner, Larry Schram beck, stated that he put in a gravel pad without a permit because he thought it was not a permanent structure as it could be removed at anytime. This was the ruling in Niles, where Mr. Schrambeck worked, and he thought he did not need a permit in Mount Prospect. Gary Schrambeck said if the second driveway is approved this evening on an approved surface, it would include the strips. Ms. Connolly stated that the parallel paved strips are an approved alternative by code. However, the curb cut/depression would still be required. Further discussion involved whether or not the strips could go into the backyard. Also, it was stated that the gravel pad would still have to be removed. Ms. Connolly confirmed that they are not reviewing the materials, as those requirements are defined in Chapters 15 and 16 in the Development Code, the case presented tonight is just for the second driveway. The Petitioners could go back and revisit the paving materials after Village Board approved the second driveway. Mr. Donnelly suggested if the Petitioners create a paved surface in the backyard to market this as a patio. If strips were placed, they would have to be removed upon the sale of the home. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 24, 2008 PZ-05-08 Page 6 Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if the Code allows paving bricks that allows the grass to grow through as an approved material. Ms. Connolly said she would have to check with Engineering as brick pavers are allowed in the right-of-way. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 10:07 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion that the Commission approve the second driveway with the condition that the driveway apron be removed upon sale of the property; Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:08 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. .<>,.''''! "/"./~/;/::';//- /;/;>"- / /' / Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ.QS-08 1750 Azalea Place (Var-2nd Driveway).doc