Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2023 P&Z MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -19-23 Hearing Date: December 14, 2023 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 707 Russel St PETITIONER: Peter Kretowski PROPERTY OWNER: Michal Kretowski PUBLICATION DATE: November 29, 2023 REQUEST: Variation to Lot Coverage Requirement MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Donald Olsen Ewa Weir Greg Miller MEMBERS ABSENT: Norbert Mizwicki Thomas Fitzgerald STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Choi — Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Peter Kretowski Katarina Karac Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 26, 2023. The minutes were approved 6-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced the first and only item of New Business: Case PZ -19-23, 707 Russel Street, a request for a variation to the lot coverage requirement. Ms. Choi thanked Chairman Donnelly and stated that the Petitioner, Peter Kretowski, is requesting a variation to the lot coverage requirement to construct a deck on the subject property. Ms. Choi explained that the subject property was annexed into the Village in 1926, and the permit history indicates various improvements since the home's construction in 1957, including for a detached two -car garage in 1977, a new driveway/flatwork, roof, and a fence. Ms. Choi added that the subject property is zoned R -A Single -Family Residential. Ms. Choi presented a slide exhibiting photos of the deck and explained that sometime in 2022, the Petitioner installed a new composite deck without a permit, and a stop work order was issued by the Village. Ms. Choi stated that the Petitioner was required to apply for a building permit for the illegal deck, but the permit was not approved since the lot coverage was pushed to its current level of 53.7% Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2023 PZ -19-23 which exceeds the 50% that is allowed. Ms. Choi further explain that staff requested that the Petitioner remove areas of impervious surface to comply with the lot coverage requirement if the deck were to remain, or go through the variation process. Ms. Choi went on to the next slide and presented a plan of the deck. Ms. Choi stated that the building department had indicated in their review that the deck appears to have been constructed incorrectly with insufficient frost depth, missing beams, inappropriate joist supports, hardware, and engineering. Ms. Choi stated that if the variation is approved, the Village will require detailed plans verifying that the deck and any other permanent structures atop comply with code. Ms. Choi stated that the Petitioner's request does not meet the standards of a variation. Staff maintains that the subject property does not have particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions that constitute a zoning hardship to the owner. Ms. Choi explained that the lot coverage for the subject property has been met and exceeded, and is the result of choices made by the original homebuilder and the existing property owner. Ms. Choi asserted that the subject property represents a typical residential interior lot and the conditions of the property are not unique that differentiates the subject property from the rest of the neighborhood. Based on these findings, Ms. Choi recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the following motion: 1. "A variation to allow a maximum lot coverage of 53.7%, as shown on the plans prepared by the Petitioner, dated 11/02/2023, subject to condition listed in the staff report." Ms. Choi stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any questions for staff. Vice Chairman Beattie asked staff if the deck would need to be rebuilt based on the drawings that were submitted by the Petitioner and the building department's comments. Commissioner Weir stated or they would have to prove they meet building code. Ms. Choi confirmed. Chairman Donnelly and Vice Chairman Beattie asked staff how much square footage 3.7% equates to and Ms. Choi stated that 3.7% is approximately 270 square feet of impervious area that would need to be removed to meet code and the deck is approximately 340 square feet. Chairman Donnelly asked if Engineering conducted any studies in the area in regard to flooding. Ms. Choi responded that there are known flooding issues in the area. Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner, Peter Krekowski of 707 Russel Street, and attorney for the Petitioner, Katarina Karac. Ms. Karac presented her slides and made the following main points: The Petitioner purchased the home in 2017 and made approximately $50,000-80,000 in improvements in the new driveway, roof, siding, doors, fence, gutters, and landscaping. The new driveway was installed in 2021 and was expanded by 2 feet on each side and contributed to the increased lot coverage. The Petitioner is a good neighbor and has a relationship with his neighbors who are supportive of his variation request. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2023 PZ -19-23 3 • Ms. Karac stated that the composite deck was installed in 2022 and the Petitioner relied on the code's definition of "impervious surface" and that the deck is not considered an impervious surface by the manufacturer. "Impervious surface" is defined as "A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by storm water. Such surfaces include hard pavements, such as concrete, asphalt, brick, slate, gravel and boulders; wood decks and structures." Ms. Karac argued that the composite deck is not highly resistant to infiltration by stormwater because the boards need to be gapped to drain and dry properly. Ms. Karac further argued that composite decks are not explicitly included in the definition of impervious surface. • Ambiguity in code and the criteria for granting a variation is satisfied and Ms. Karac explained how the variation request met the responses to the variation standards: a. Because the detached garage is deeply setback, the hardship was not caused by the Petitioner, but was an existing condition. If the Petitioner had known the expansion of the driveway would contribute to an increase in the lot coverage, the Petitioner would not have expanded the driveway. b. Sufficient drawings and pictures can be provided to satisfy the building department comments. Policy is not law and under well-established case law, ambiguity in a zoning ordinance should be resolved in favor of the property owner. Vice Chairman Beattie questioned the argument that the definition of impervious surface does not apply to composite decks and emphasized that composite decks are constructed the exact same way as a wood deck is, in that there are gaps between the boards to allow water to drain through them. Chairman Donnelly asked if the material underneath the deck is grass. Ms. Karac responded that pebble rocks and a barrier exist underneath the deck. Chairman Donnelly stated that pebbles restrict the amount of water going through them and are therefore considered impervious. Commissioner Weir asked Ms. Karac to finish her presentation and the commission will then ask questions. c. Petitioner's request is not financially motivated. d. Hardship was not self-created as the lot and configuration of property was not developed by the Petitioner. e. Property is not located in a floodway or flood zone, no drainage issues experienced, it will not be detrimental to the public or other property; six letters of support by neighbors were provided. f. The variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. g. Not a lot of assertion that the deck is causing flooding issues and if the variation is approved, the Petitioner would apply for a building permit and get that approved. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner if the deck builder was aware that a permit was required. Mr. Kretowski apologized and took full responsibility for not finalizing the permit. Commissioner Weir asked the Petitioner if there is a geotechnical fabric weed barrier under the gravel, and if this geotechnical fabric weed barrier is pervious. Mr. Kretowski was unable to answer the question with certainty and responded that he would need to check with the deck installer. Commissioner Weir asked if gravel is included in the definition of impervious surface. Ms. Karac stated Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2023 PZ -19-23 4 that gravel is included in the definition but was unsure if it was gravel or some other type of rock that was used and would need to verify that with the Petitioner and his contractor. Vice Chairman Beattie appreciated the Petitioner's apology that he made a mistake but stated that nothing in the Petitioner's argument falls within the definition of a hardship and nothing is unique about the property, and the Petitioner does have a financial interest in improving his property. Chairman Donnelly stated that the lot coverage needs to meet 50% and asked if the Petitioner had considered the option of removing impervious surface from the driveway. Chairman Donnelly asked staff if the detached garage is required to be five feet away from the property lines. Ms. Choi stated that the detached garage can be located three feet from the rear and side lot lines based on the property's lot width. Chairman Donnelly asked for the record if there was one letter of opposition and Ms. Choi responded in the affirmative. Chairman Donnelly explained that the concern in the resident's letter was flooding. Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioner if he can do anything to the driveway to meet the 50% lot coverage. Ms. Karac responded that her client is being pushed to spend more money to fix a problem that she does not believe is her client's fault as the deck material does not fall within the legal definition of impervious surface area. Vice Chairman Beattie expressed sympathy for the Petitioner's predicament but stated he was not persuaded by the argument that impervious surface does not apply to the composite deck because the deck is composed of a synthetic material not listed in the definition. Chairman Donnelly stated that there might not be flooding today, but if the variation is granted, a flooding problem could occur in the future if all property owners in the area decided to build up to the maximum lot coverage. Chairman Donnelly added that the Petitioner has options to remove impervious surfaces from the property and further emphasized that impervious surface has been interpreted to mean that the flow of stormwater is slowed down and that it could create flooding issues. Ms. Karac asked under what circumstances could an applicant exceed lot coverage and meet the criteria for a variation. Commissioner Olsen asked if it was 270 square feet of impervious surface that would need to be removed from the deck or the driveway. Chairman Donnelly responded that the Petitioner could remove any 270 square feet of impervious area that would get him down to 50% lot coverage. Commissioner Weir asked staff if the Village has ever granted variations for exceeding lot coverage for decks. Ms. Choi responded that there have been cases where the Village has granted variations from the lot coverage requirement but that these have been granted on a case-by-case basis. Ms. Choi stated there was one case of a historic property that wanted to reduce the existing lot coverage, but the lot coverage was still slightly over the required lot coverage. Chairman Donnelly stated that it was a case where the historic preservation society was in support and the commission also was in support because they had improved the existing lot coverage. Chairman Donnelly however did not recall approving any variations where there were known flooding issues. Commissioner Weir asked if staff thought the definition of impervious is ambiguous. Ms. Choi stated that wood decks are the only decks that are included in the definition of impervious surface and it has to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2023 PZ -19-23 do with the weed barrier installed under the deck. Weed barriers, even if they start out as pervious, will degrade over time, so the Village has consistently and historically considered all decks as impervious due to the installation of any kind of weed barrier installed underneath the deck. Ms. Choi explained that the only way that weed barriers would be considered pervious is if they were constantly replaced or maintained over time, which is virtually impossible to do [without dismantling the deck]. Ms. Choi also pointed that the lot coverage requirement does not only have to do with impervious surface but with massing as well in that if the deck was constructed over grass, then homeowners could potentially deck over their entire yard, which goes against the intent of the code. Commissioner Weir asked if this was explicit in the code or inferred. Ms. Choi responded that it is inferred, but that historically it has always been applied in this manner. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the following motion: "A variation to allow a maximum lot coverage of 53.7%, as shown on the plans prepared by the Petitioner, dated 11/02/2023, subject to condition listed in the staff report." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: None NAYS: Szymczak, Weir, Olsen, Beattie, Miller, Donnelly The motion was denied by a vote of 6-0. After hearing no more items of new business, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak and the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 PM. Ann Choi Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2023 PZ -19-23