Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/14/2025 P&Z Minutes (PZ-17-25) 631 South Albert Street / CU: Setback Reduction (Interior Side Yard)MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NOS. PZ-17-25 Hearing Date: August 14, 2025 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 631 South Albert Street PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Joe Hanafee PUBLICATION DATE: July 30, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use approval to allow a reduction in the required interior side yard setback from seven feet (7'-0") to zero feet. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Ewa Weir Wa lte r Szym cza k Michael Fricano Richard Rogers William Beattie Donald Olsen MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Antonia Lalagos — Development Planner Ann Choi — Development Planner Jason Shallcross — Director of Community & Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Joe Hanafee and Liz LaPlante Niko Thoma Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at7:01 PM. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 24, 2025. The minutes were approved 7-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-17-25, 631 South Albert Street, a request for conditional use approval for a setback reduction. Planning staff member, Ann Choi, introduced Zoning Case No. PZ- 17-25. Ms. Choi stated that the petitioner and property owner, Joe Hanafee, is requesting conditional use approval to reduce the interior side yard setback for the construction of a patio at the subject property. Ms. Choi stated that the subject property was annexed into the Village in 1956 and is located on the east side of Albert Street, north of Golf hurst Avenue. Ms. Choi described the subject property as improved with a single-family residence with associated improvements and is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence. Ms. Choi noted that the subject property is bordered by the R-1 District on all sides, except to the east, where it Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2025 PZ-17-25 abuts single-family homes within the City of Des Plaines. Ms. Choi stated that permit records indicate that various improvements have been made since the home's construction in 1958. Ms. Choi presented a few photos of the subject property. The first slide provided photos of an existing nonconforming brick patio. Ms. Choi explained that the existing nonconforming patio was located in the subject property's southern interior side yard, and had been in place for over 30 years, predating the petitioner's purchase of the home in 2013. Ms. Choi indicated that when the patio started to deteriorate and pose a safety hazard, the petitioner applied for a building permit to replace it with a new structure of the same size and in the same location. Ms. Choi stated that the building permit was denied due to the patio's encroachment into the interior side yard. Ms. Choi noted that the petitioner subsequently reconstructed the patio, stoop, and walkway without a permit, using pavers installed over landscape rock rather than the required stone base and concrete. Ms. Choi noted staff recommendation that, if the conditional use is approved, the patio be rebuilt in full compliance with current Village codes. Additionally, Ms. Choi reported that the Public Works Department will require that corrective measures be implemented if, at any point in the future, the patio is found to obstruct water flow or contribute to drainage issues either on the subject property or on neighboring properties. Ms. Choi presented the proposed site plan which shows the current configuration of the patio which extends all the way to the property line. Ms. Choi then presented a zoning table which outlines the bulk regulations for the R-1 Single Family Residential district. Ms. Choi stated that planning staff feels that the conditional use request meets the standards for a conditional use. Ms. Choi further stated that staff does not believe the petitioner's request will be inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Choi noted that five letters of support were submitted by neighboring properties, including one from 633 South Albert Street, the property that would be the most directly impacted by the reduced side yard setback. Further, Ms. Choi pointed out that the petitioner's request conforms to all other bulk regulations other than the interior yard setback along the south property line. Ms. Choi summarized staff's findings and stated that the proposed patio is an existing nonconforming accessory structure and has existed for over 30 years with no issues from surrounding neighbors. Ms. Choi stated that the applicant has agreed to install a privacy fence along the length of the patio which will help Limit its visibility and minimize potential impacts on the adjacent neighbor to the south, and that there is no indication that the proposed improvement would create adverse conditions or nuisances that could negatively affect the use and enjoyment of nearby properties. Furthermore, Ms. Choi stated that the conditional use request is consistent with the goals and policies of the Village's Comprehensive Plan, as it supports the continued residential use of the property. Ms. Choi also noted that the conditional use request is also consistent with Goal 3 of the Village of Mount Prospect's 2024-2029-2039 Strategic Plan, which focuses on the evaluation of current zoning regulations to promote single-family residential neighborhoods. Ms. Choi stated that staff supports the petitioner's conditional use request, based on the information submitted, the surrounding uses, and the proposed development's compliance with the Village's zoning ordinance and long-range planning document, and recommended approval of the following motion: "Motion to approve: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2025 PZ-17-25 1. A conditional use to reduce the minimum interior side yard setback from 7 feet to zero feet for the construction of a patio at 631 South Albert Street, Case No. PZ-17-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced interior side yard setback shall apply only to the patio and shall not apply to any other principal or accessory structure; b. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B; c. If at any time in the future it is determined that the patio obstructs the flow of water or somehow causes a drainage problem either on site or on the neighboring property, corrective measures shall be required. d. A 4-foot-tall fence shall be installed adjacent to the patio for the lifetime of the patio; and e. The petitioner shall revise the existing building permit plans and reconstruct the patio, stoop and walkway in full compliance with the Village's current codes. Ms. Choi stated that the Village Board's decision is final for the case and concluded her presentation. Chairman Donnelly asked the commissioners if there were any questions for staff. Vice Chairman Beattie questioned whether the petitioner's improvement truly qualified as a patio, noting it appeared to be loose gravel with flat stones rather than a permanent, code -compliant structure. Vice Chairman Beattie compared it to more substantial patios built with a sand base, pavers, or even wood decks, and suggested the current installation resembled a decorative garden path. Vice Chairman Beattie raised concerns about whether requiring reconstruction with a proper sand base was necessary, given the temporary nature of the existing setup. Ms. Choi responded that the Village interprets it as a patio since it is used as an outdoor living space and stated that the patio as currently installed appears unstable and should be rebuilt to meet current code standards. Commissioner Weir asked if the lot coverage is below the requirement, confirmed that staff was requiring the petitioner to rebuild the patio, and asked why the patio could not simply be rebuilt in compliance with current code and setback requirements. Ms. Choi responded that the patio is below the lot coverage requirement of 45% at 32.1 % and explained that the petitioner chose to replicate the prior nonconforming condition rather than relocate or resize the patio to meet the required setbacks. Hearing no further questions for staff, Chairman Donnelly invited the petitioners to the stand. Chairman Donnelly swore in the following petitioners and representatives as they appeared at the stand to answer questions: • Joe Hanafee and Liz LaPlante (Petitioner and Property Owners), 631 South Albert Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois Niko Thoma (Contractor), 215 North Fairview Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois Mr. Hanafee testified that the patio had existed when they purchased the home in 2013 but had become unsafe, prompting their attempt to replace it. After their permit was denied, their contractor suggested a less formal installation, which they believed would not qualify asa patio. Mr. Hanafee explained that they pursued a conditional use because reducing the setback by only a few feet would not provide adequate usable space, and they wished to maintain the same footprint neighbors had long been accustomed to without issue. In response to Chairman Donnelly's questions, Mr. Hanafee clarified that what appeared to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2025 PZ-17-25 be a pool in the backyard was actually a trampoline, which could be relocated, but he and his family preferred to preserve open green space rather than converting it into additional hardscape. Commissioner Weir asked whether the patio could be reduced in width to comply with the required setback. Mr. Hanafee responded that the patio measures approximately 11 by 15 feet and reducing the width would leave only a four -foot walkway, which would not be usable for seating or grilling. The petitioner's contractor, Mr. Thoma, explained that he attempted to replace the deteriorated patio with a new structure but misunderstood the requirements, believing that by avoiding a permanent installation, the project would conform to code. Mr. Thoma acknowledged the mistake and clarified that the intent was simply to restore a usable outdoor space for the homeowners. Vice Chairman Beattie asked whether the petitioners would accept staff's condition requiring reconstruction with a proper base to meet code standards. Mr. Hanafee agreed, stating they were comfortable with the condition. Chairman Donnelly confirmed the petitioners' acceptance of all staff - recommended conditions and noted that neighbors had submitted letters of support, including one from the adjacent property owner who had lived next to the patio for 30 years. Mr. Hanafee stated that no neighbors attended the hearing because they had already expressed their support in writing. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Beattie and seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to recommend approval of the conditional use. During discussion, Vice Chairman Beattie reiterated his view that the structure resembled a garden walkway more than a patio but acknowledged staff's interpretation and the petitioners' agreement to comply with conditions. Chairman Donnelly commented that the installation fell into a "gray area" between a path and a patio. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditional use subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak. With no further discussion, a roll call vote was taken. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Olsen, Beattie, Rogers, Fricano NAYS: Weir, Donnelly The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (5-2) to the Village Board for the requests for the September 2, 2025 meeting. After hearing three more items of new business and no citizens to be heard, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak and the meeting was adjourned at 8:58 PM. r Ann Choi, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2025 PZ-17-25