Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2025 P&Z Minutes (PZ-26-25) / 17 S Maple Street / CU: Setback Reduction, VARs: Increases to Accessory Structure Size and Height, Lot Coverage, Accessory Structure in Easement1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-25 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: Hearing Date: November 13, 2025 17 S. Maple Street Mitch Kenoe October 29, 2025 REQUEST: Conditional use to reduce the minimum rear yard setback and variations to permit an increase to the maximum accessory structure height, maximum accessory structure size, maximum lot coverage, and to allow an accessory structure to be located within an easement. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Walter Szymczak Richard Rogers Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Michael Fricano STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Charles Hogan -Development Planner Jason Shallcross - Director of Community & Economic Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mitch Kenoe, Petitioner/Property Owner Tom Karlov, Resident and Neighbor 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 23, 2025. The minutes were approved 4-0 (Commissioner Costa arrived after the approval of the meeting minutes). Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-26-25, 17 S. Maple Street, a request for conditional use approval to reduce the rear yard setback and variations to allow increases to accessory structure height, size, and lot coverage, as well as a variation to permit an accessory structure to be located within an easement. Director Shallcross presented the existing nonconforming shed (constructed by a previous homeowner) at the rear of the property and the requested zoning relief for the conversion of an existing shed into an art studio with a porch addition, including: • Avariation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. (+6.7% PZ Final) • Avariation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 square feet. (+205.7% VB Final) • Avariation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement in perpetuity. (VB Final) • Avariation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%. (+12.3% PZ Final) • A conditional use permit to reduce the minimum rear yard setback for accessory structures from 3 feet (T-O") to 2 inches (0'-2") for the construction of an accessory structure. (-94.4% VB Final) Director Shallcross presented a slide providing compliance with the bulk regulations of the R-a district. out that the existing lot coverage already exceeds what is permitted. Director Shallcross noted that staff reviewed ADA Title II considerations and acknowledged the medical documentation submitted showing the therapeutic benefit of the structure for the petitioner's daughter. Director Shallcross clarified that while the interior conversion of the shed could be permitted as a reasonable accommodation, the porch addition requires zoning approval because it is considered new construction. A condition of the permit required that the shed would need to de -convert the shed into an art studio or completely demolish the shed. Director Shallcross further explained that no letters of objection were received from applicable utility companies regarding the structure's location beneath overhead utility Lines, provided that no further expansion occurs. Director Shallcross concluded his presentation with staff's recommendation approving of the conditional use and variations as a reasonable accommodation but did not support allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home. Recommended conditions included: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Director Shallcross concluded that staff finds that the proposed conditional use and variations satisfy the criteria for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act but did not support allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home. Director Shallcross requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion: "Motion to: 1. Approve a variation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. 2. Approve a variation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%, subject to the following condition: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 3. Recommend approval of a conditional use to reduce the minimum rear side yard setback applicable to accessory structures from three feet (3'-0") to zero feet two inches (0'-2") for the construction of an accessory structure at 17 S Maple Street, Case No. PZ-26-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition only 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 of the staff report; c. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make -A -Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and d. The art/play studio including the porch/patio addition shall be restored to its original nonconforming shed use or shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village's issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 4. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 SF. 5. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement, subject to the following condition: a. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 4 remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. 6. Recommend approval of a statement to the Village Board that, recognizing that certain zoning requests in the application are Planning and Zoning Commission final and others merely recommendations, the Village Board review the application as a whole, feeling free to modify or rescind any aspects of the application that are Planning and Zoning Commission final where it deems it in the best interest of the Village." Director Shallcross highlighted the inclusion of the sixth condition that would allow the Village Board to modify or rescind any of the zoning requests that were already approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Shallcross stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the request for increased accessory structure size and lot coverage, and the Village Board's decision is final for the remaining requests. Chairman Donnelly asked what would happen if the Planning and Zoning Commission would deny the requests under the authority of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Shallcross stated that all zoning requests that are Planning and Zoning Commission final, if denied by the Commission, would be appealable to the Village Board, and an appeal would need to be filed within five days of the denial. Director Shallcross also reviewed the conditions of approval: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable Lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 2. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition only and shall not apply to any other principal or accessory structure; 3. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the plat of survey attached as Exhibit B of the staff report; 4. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make -A -Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and 5. The art/play studio, including the porch/patio addition shall be restored to its original nonconforming shed use or shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village's issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 6. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Chairman Donnelly stated that the shed was constructed without a permit, and the lot coverage was not checked when the shed was built. Director Shallcross confirmed that the shed is an illegal nonconforming structure. Vice Chairman Beattie expressed confusion how the zoning requests were related to the disability of the petitioner's daughter. Director Shallcross stated that the Petitioner provided a letter from a medical professional overseeing the treatment of the Petitioner's daughter documenting the disability and the use of the shed as beneficial for therapeutic purposes. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly closed the public hearing and swore in the petitioner, Mitch Kenoe, 17 S. Maple Street. Mr. Kenoe described the project as part of a Make -A -Wish Foundation experience for his daughter, who suffers from chronic medical conditions including Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis and a brain anomaly requiring ongoing therapies. Mr. Kenoe stated that the art/play studio provides a therapeutic, calming environment that helps her decompress after treatments. Mr. Kenoe explained that the Make -A -Wish funding has already been used for wiring, insulation, and interior improvements, making reconstruction infeasible. Mr. Kenoe stated that he is willing to install the French drain and comply with all required conditions. Mr. Kenoe requested consideration for allowing the structure to remain beyond the sale of the home, noting the structure's compatibility with the neighborhood. Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioner what the connection between the Petitioner's daughter's medical conditions and the improvements being requested. Mr. Kenoe explained that the accommodation is intended to address his daughter's significant emotional and psychological trauma related to her medical care. Mr. Kenoe noted that although his daughter currently has no physical limitations due to ongoing treatment, she has experienced severe medical events, including two anaphylactic reactions in the past year, and continues to undergo frequent medical interventions. The proposed improvements are intended to provide a safe, calming space to help manage her anxiety associated with these ongoing medical needs. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner to clarify why the existing non -permitted shed must remain to accommodate his daughter's needs, and he questioned what alternatives were considered to provide a code -compliant space within the backyard and why those options were not pursued instead of relying on a structure that does not meet Village requirements. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Make -A -Wish foundation provide the money to provide a shed, a legal shed, on the property for her. Mr. Kenoe responded that no alternative structure was pursued because the family has already invested their available funds into the temporary conversion of the existing shed, as previously described by Director Shallcross. Mr. Kenoe explained that the only remaining grant funds are Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 designated specifically for the hardscape patio shown in the renderings, which would provide accessible connection to the structure. Chairman Donnelly asked Mr. Kenoe whether a building permit had been obtained prior to undertaking the temporary conversion of the shed. Mr. Kenoe confirmed that the permit for the temporary work was secured with the Village before the conversion was completed. Commissioner Rogers asked whether the structure was constructed on a slab -on -grade foundation and if the Petitioner was aware that, should utility work be required in the area, the entire structure might need to be removed. Mr. Kenoe confirmed that he is aware of the potential risk associated with the structure's location beneath the utility lines and stated that he had spoken with all three utility providers, who indicated they had no objections given the circumstances. Chairman Donnelly also noted that it was noted in the staff report that the Petitioner is aware and there are letters from the utility companies stating that they do not have any concerns with the structure there. Chairman Donnelly noted additional concerns regarding the property's lot coverage and potential drainage impacts. Chairman Donnelly explained that the concrete structure is Located within an area where several properties drain toward the rear yards. Chairman Donnelly stated that this presents a technical concern for the Commission's consideration. Vice Chairman Beattie asked the Petitioner if the porch addition was a necessity or if the shed conversion would be sufficient to fill the therapeutic needs of the Petitioner's daughter. Mr. Kenoe replied that the removal of the porch addition could be a consideration and concession that could be made. Chairman Donnelly noted that while staff's recommendation already includes a condition requiring the removal or restoration of the structure prior to the sale of the property, he would be supportive of a condition clarifying that the structure must be demolished to bring the lot back into conformance. Chairman Donnelly stated that this approach would allow the petitioner to maintain use of the art/play studio during their occupancy but would require its removal once the property is sold, ensuring the site ultimately complies with zoning regulations related to lot coverage and drainage. Mr. Kenoe stated that he preferred a condition that would allow the structure to remain on the property in perpetuity, provided its use remained non -habitable. He emphasized that the shed pre -dated his ownership by decades and that its improvement into an art/play studio has enhanced the property and surrounding neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly responded that typically, non -permitted accessory structures would be required to be removed to restore compliance but acknowledged the unique accessibility circumstances presented by the petitioner. Vice Chairman Beattie agreed, Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 stating that while the request is understandable given the needs of the petitioner's daughter, the relief should remain tied to those needs rather than run with the land. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that the intent of the accommodation is not to increase the property's resale value, but to address an accessibility -related necessity. Mr. Kenoe asked whether the structure could remain and simply be reverted to a shed use upon sale of the property. Vice Chairman Beattie and Chairman Donnelly explained that full removal would likely be necessary to restore compliance with lot coverage and drainage requirements. Mr. Kenoe then asked for clarification that the Commission would consider approval contingent on the removal of the structure upon sale of the home, to which Chairman Donnelly indicated leaning towards that direction. Director Shallcross clarified that staff's recommended condition already specifies that the art/play studio and porch/patio addition must either be restored to its original non- conforming shed use or demolished in its entirety prior to the Village's issuance of a transfer stamp. Director Shallcross advised that, should the Commission wish to modify the condition to require demolition only, that modification should be explicitly included in the motion to approve. Vice Chairman Beattie noted that the petitioner faced a unique situation, having inherited a non -compliant structure not of his own doing. Vice Chairman Beattie suggested that, rather than maintaining a structure that required multiple variances, it might be preferable to construct a compliant alternative elsewhere on the lot. Mr. Kenoe responded that the structure was already fully improved with insulation, drywall, and windows, and that the work was completed through the Make -A -Wish Foundation. Mr. Kenoe stated that numerous options had been considered but this project best met his family's needs given their circumstances and health limitations. Mr. Kenoe added that Make -A -Wish had already funded and completed the work, and that the improvements were completed with the Village's knowledge. Chairman Donnelly invited the public to speak. Tom Karlov, 300 E. Evergreen Avenue, spoke in support of the petition. Mr. Karlov stated that he has known the petitioner's family for approximately five years and noted that both Mr. Kenoe's wife and daughter have serious health conditions. Mr. Karlov explained that the community previously organized fundraisers, including the "June Bug Fund," to assist the family. Mr. Karlov stated that the shed has existed for decades and was improved through the Make -A -Wish Foundation to provide a space where the petitioner's wife and daughter could spend time together. Mr. Karlov described the structure as well-built and compatible with the neighborhood and expressed his full support for allowing it to remain. Mr. Karlov and Chairman Donnelly discussed neighborhood drainage, with Mr. Karlov stating that he was not aware of any current flooding or drainage issues in the area. Mr. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Karlov emphasized that the shed has existed for decades, is well built, and complements the historic character of the neighborhood. Mr. Karlov expressed his hope that the structure could continue to remain and provide a space for the petitioner's wife and daughter to spend time together. Commissioner Costa inquired about the height of the structure and its proximity to the ComEd utility lines, asking whether the utility's approval was permanent or time limited. Vice Chairman noted that utility representatives had confirmed the structure's placement within the easement and their need for continued access. Director Shallcross added that all utility providers, including ComEd, had approved the plans as submitted specifically prohibiting any future expansion but allowing the existing structure and porch to remain. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly closed the public hearing. Chairman Donnelly stated that the goal should be to eventually bring the property back into full zoning compliance, noting that while the family may remain in the home for many years, the Village cannot predict how future commissions might view the nonconforming structure. Chairman Donnelly supported allowing continued use during the current ownership but requiring demolition prior to resale to ensure long-term compliance. Director Shallcross confirmed that a future property owner could petition to amend the ordinance and request that the condition be modified or removed at a later date but emphasized that the current approval should require removal prior to issuance ofa transfer stamp. Director Shallcross advised against imposing any fixed time limit, recommending that the transfer -stamp condition remain as the most enforceable mechanism. Chairman Donnelly summarized that the intent is to allow the existing use for the benefit of the current family, while ensuring the property returns to compliance once the home is sold consistent with how the Village has handled past accessibility -related accommodations. Director Shallcross clarified that the current discussion concerned only whether the property must be restored to compliance upon sale, not the separate issue of the porch addition. Director Shallcross explained that the proposed modification would remove the option for the petitioner to restore the structure to a nonconforming shed and instead require full removal prior to the sale of the property. Vice Chairman Beattie confirmed that the intent was to strike the phrase "restored to its original nonconforming shed use" from the staff -recommended condition, thereby requiring demolition of the structure to bring the lot back into compliance. Chairman Donnelly reiterated that the condition would ensure conformance at resale while allowing the family to continue use of the structure during their occupancy. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 Vice Chairman Beattie asked whether a condition should be added to prohibit the structure from being made habitable or equipped with plumbing. Director Shallcross responded that such use is already prohibited by the zoning code and that any conversion to a living space would constitute a violation of other zoning code regulations. The Commission agreed that no additional conditions were necessary. Chairman Donnelly then asked whether there were any concerns regarding the proposed porch addition. Director Shallcross noted that the porch would extend seven feet from the south side of the existing shed, continuing the existing two-inch setback from the rear property line and maintaining the nonconforming condition. A straw vote was taken regarding modification of staff's recommended transfer -stamp condition. By a vote of 3-2, the Planning and Zoning Commission supported requiring complete demolition of the accessory structure upon the future sale of the subject property, removing the option to restore the structure to a storage shed. Chairman Donnelly acknowledged that while the porch and associated coverage increase are not ideal, he supported the modification given the accessibility -related purpose of the request and the condition requiring drainage improvements to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked fora motion. Commissioner Beattie made motion and Commissioner Szymczak seconded the motion to approve the requests as listed in the staff report, but amending a condition, and summarized here: 1. Approve a variation from Section 14.306(A)(3)(a) to permit an increase to the maximum height requirement of an accessory structure in a residential district from 10 feet to 10.67 feet. 2. Approve a variation from Section 14.1005(C)(1) to permit an increase to the maximum lot coverage requirement from 50% to 56.2%, subject to the following condition: a. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a French drain, or other acceptable means of providing the required storage/infiltration for the area exceeding allowable lot coverage, shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 3. Recommend approval of a conditional use to reduce the minimum rear side yard setback applicable to accessory structures from three feet (3'-0") to zero feet two inches (0'-2") for the construction of an accessory structure at 17 S Maple Street, Case No. PZ-26-25, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the reduced rear yard setback for accessory structures shall apply to the art/play studio including the porch/patio Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25 10 addition only 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 of the staff report; c. The art/play studio shall be used only for personal, non-commercial purposes consistent with the Make -A -Wish Foundation request and satisfy Village Home Occupation regulations; and d. The art/play studio, including the porch/patio addition, shall be demolished in its entirety prior to the Village's issuance of a transfer stamp for any future sale or conveyance of the property. 4. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(1)(b) to permit an increase to the maximum size requirement of an accessory structure from 157 square feet to 323 SF. 5. Recommend approval of a variation from Section 14.306(B)(2)(c) to permit an accessory structure to be constructed within an easement, subject to the following condition: a. The Petitioner shall obtain written approval from all applicable utility providers authorizing the art/play studio including the porch/patio addition to remain in its proposed location and shall comply with any conditions or requirements imposed by the utility companies. 6. Recommend approval of a statement to the Village Board that, recognizing that certain zoning requests in the application are Planning and Zoning Commission final and others merely recommendations, the Village Board review the application as a whole, feeling free to modify or rescind any aspects of the application that are Planning and Zoning Commission final where it deems it in the best interest of the Village. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Beattie, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: Rogers The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (4-1) for the next Village Board meeting to be held on December 2, 2025. After hearing three more items of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Szymczak, and the meeting was adjourned at8:34 PM. J/ Ann Choi, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — November 13, 2025 PZ-26-25