Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2008 P&Z minutes 11-08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-ll-08 Hearing Date: June 26, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 N. School Street PETITIONER: Michael Ryan PUBLICATION DATE: May 7, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-416-018-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBER ABSENT: Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Patrick Ainsworth, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael Ryan, Mike Haaing Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2008 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-II-08, a request for a Variation (side yard set back) at 100 N. School Street, at 7:34 p.m. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated that the property is located on the northwest corner of East Henry Street and North School Street. He showed the existing site conditions. Mr. Simmons said the home is presently a one story brick home with a driveway that fronts off of Henry Street. The area in question is the North property line. The one story room is approximately 14 feet x 14 feet and a deck extends off the room to the West. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner has proposed to expand this room to the West. Mr. Simmons said that the proposed expansion would extend 16 feet into the deck and would maintain the existing setback line along the North property line. This extension would increase the square footage of the house by approximately 225 feet. The existing Western end of the deck would remain as is so the size of the deck would decrease in size to ten feet in depth, but total number of impervious area on the site would not increase as part of the project. Mr. Simmons stated that the existing home was considered non-conforming based on the side yard setback that existed along the North property line. He said that the current room is five feet from the property line on the North side while seven feet is required. Mr. Simmons stated per Village Ordinance, a non-conforming structure cannot be expanded or constructed upon which would increase the non-conformity of the building. The proposed expansion would extend the amount of the home which is non-conforming on the North side by approximately 16 feet. Mr. Simmons showed a table of the R-l zoning district bulk requirements: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-II-08 Page 2 Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 29.86' No change Exterior 20' 20.19' No change Interior 7' 5' (north) 5' Rear 25' 47' 47' FAR 50% Maximum 22.8% 24.8% LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 35.6% 35.6% Mr. Simmons stated that the existing non-conforming setback was not applicable to the proposed room expansion; therefore, the expansion would require approval of a Variation. Mr. Simmons said Staff reviewed this matter with the Village's Legal Division due to the unique circumstances of this case. He stated in 1990, the Federal Government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which established guidelines for providing access to individuals who may have disabilities or handicaps. In this case, the Petitioner is in a wheelchair and is requesting a Variation for his house to provide access to the facility. The Legal Division determined the applicability of ADA to zoning Variations. Based on legal review, Mr. Simmons stated that the Village must make reasonable accommodations in light of an applicant's disability when granting a Variation. Case law exists which demonstrates the Village may grant a Variation if demonstrated quality of life enhancement exists or the petitioners usability of space is increased. Mr. Simmons said Staff requested that the Petitioner provide information to show how a Variation would address his needs and how not granting a Variation would limit the use of home. Mr. Simmons said by Code, the Petitioner could expand the home to within seven feet for the North property line and not require a Variation. The proposal asked for a five foot setback to be consistent with the rest of the home along the North property line. Mr. Simmons stated that insufficient information was provided with the Petitioner's application on why the reduction of two feet to meet the set back requirement would not enhance the Petitioner's needs of accessing the home or limit the use of the home. Mr. Simmons said Staff believed that the justification for the Variation is not supported by the hardship standards listed in the zoning ordinance, nor does the legal history with ADA justify the variation in this case. Mr. Simmons stated the Variation request for a five (5) foot interior side yard does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback along a portion of the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Kabal Surveying Company, dated February 29, 2008 for the residence at 100 N. School Street, Case No. PZ-II-08." Chairman Rogers swore in Mike Ryan, 100 N. School Street, Mount Prospect, IL and Mike Haaning, 205 Forest Avenue, Mount Prospect, IL 60056. Mr. Haaning said that he appreciates Staffs' position. He believed that they are covering an existing structure, the deck which is already legal non-conforming. Mr. Haaning stated that they are covering an existing condition and not expanding. He said that they would be reducing the encroachment of the deck by a Y2 foot, this would increase the Petitioner's living space. Mr. Haaning stated that the Petitioner has his exercise equipment in the garage because it does not fit in any other areas of the home. This new room would allow the equipment to be utilized indoors despite weather conditions. Mr. Haaning said the proposed room would allow the Petitioner to have an office area if the Petitioner could not leave his home. He stated that egress/ingress is a current concern as Mr. Ryan can only enter his home through Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-II-08 Page 3 the garage. If the power went out on the home, Mr. Ryan could not enter or exit the home. Expanding the den would allow another point of access for the Petitioner. Mr. Haaning stated that if the room was expanded without the Variation, Mr. Ryan would not have the mobility that he needs to move within his home. Chairman Rogers confirmed with the Petitioner that a 12 foot section where the entry door would work. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could have an entry door and still maintain the seven foot side yard. Mr. Haaning said the way the room was situated with the pipes, there would not be enough room to install a door. Chairman Rogers asked specifics about the exercise equipment. Mr. Ryan said he would like a set of three stations (machines). He was not able to utilize a park district or commercial facility. Mr. Ryan stated that each piece of the exercise equipment is approximately four by five feet. Joseph Donnelly asked Staff about the non-conforming structure. Mr. Simmons said that it may have been constructed before the zoning ordinance. With the existing structure, there were no Variations in the past that would justify the five foot set back. There was general discussion regarding the house because it is located on a corner lot. Ronald Roberts asked if the Petitioner has discussed this proposal with his neighbor. Mr. Ryan stated that the neighbor next to his house is supportive of the Variation. Mr. Roberts asked Staff if this case was properly noticed to the neighbors. Mr. Simmons said the case was properly noticed and Staff did receive feedback, no one was against the proposal. The neighbor directly adjacent to the proposed property wrote a letter of support. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-II-08, a request for a Variation (Side yard set back), at 100 N. School Street. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Leo Floros believed this is a reasonable request since the five foot set back exists and the Petitioner is not increasing this; he saw no problem at all. Mr. Roberts said safety is an issue and the Petitioner needs an exit in case of a fire. He does not see an issue with the Variation since the neighbors did not object, especially the neighbor who would be directly affected by this. Marlys Haaland stated that an entry way was needed and hopes it works out for the Petitioner. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, NA YS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11: 12 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\Plarming & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MinutesIPZ-II-08 100 N School (Ryan Residence)