Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/2026 PZ-14-26 / 504 S Albert St / CU: Accessory Structure1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-26 Hearing Date: June 25, 2026 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 504 South Albert Street PETITIONER: Sam Frasco 504 South Albert Street PUBLICATION DATE: June 10, 2026 REQUEST: Conditional use approval for an accessory structure. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Ewa Weir Wa lte r Szym cza k Richard Rogers Fay Costa MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael Fricano Donald Olsen STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Antonia Lalagos — Development Planner Catherine Cook— Community Development Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Sam Frasco Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at7:01 PM. Chairman Donnelly moved on to Item Two, Approval of Minutes. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 14, 2026. The minutes were approved 5-0 with Commissioner Costa abstaining. Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-14-26, 504 South Albert Street, a request for conditional use approval to widen the interior side yard walkway encroachment from three feet (3'- 0") to four feet (4'-0") at the subject property. Ms. Cook explained that the subject property was annexed into the Village in 1917 and is improved with a single-family residence that was constructed in 1958. Ms. Cook stated that the Subject Property is zoned R-1 Single Family Residence District and consists of approximately 0.19 acres on South Albert Street, South of East Prospect Avenue. Ms. Cook explained that the Petitioner, Sam Frasco, has resided at the Subject Property since 2004. Ms. Cook stated that the principal structure was built along the south side yard setback of 7.3 feet. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —June 25, 2026 PZ-14-26 Ms. Cook stated that pursuant to the Village's Zoning Ordinance, walkways located within an interior side yard are permitted as an obstruction, provided they do not exceed three feet (3'-0") in width. Ms. Cook explained the Petitioner proposes to increase the permitted encroachment of the side yard walkway from the maximum permitted width of three feet (3'-0") to four feet (4'-0"), which would allow the walkway to extend to and abut the exterior wall of the attached garage. The Petitioner stated in the application that by extending the sidewalk towards the garage, it will prevent rain and ice water from entering the garage. The Petitioner also stated that he would like to install a pop-up drain several feet from the property to allow proper drainage. Ms. Cook concluded that staff finds that the proposed conditional use meets the standards contained in the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance. Staff requests that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt Staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the following motion: 1. "A conditional use to construct a walkway that encroaches four feet (4'-0") into the interior side yard at 504 South Albert Street, subject to the following conditions: a. The conditional use for the increase in encroachment for the permitted obstruction of the walkway shall only apply to the walkway located in the southern interior side yard as indicated on the plat of survey and not to any other accessory structure; b. The improvements shall be in strict conformance with the submitted plat of survey as illustrated in Exhibit B; c. The existing drainage patterns are not adversely impacted. The sidewalk shall be installed to meet the existing grades. If a change in the sidewalk elevation is desired, a grading plan shall be required showing both existing and proposed ground and sidewalk elevations; and Cl. Any downspout design changes or undergrounding requires approval by the Village engineer prior to the issuance of a permit." Ms. Cook stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked for questions from the Commissioners. Vice Chairman Beattie asked why the sidewalk could not just abut the garage without extending to four feet (4'-0"). Ms. Cook shared that the Petitioner wants the walkway to abut the principle structure, closing the gap between the walkway and the house. Ms. Cook explained that the sidewalk would exceed the three-foot (3'-0") maximum allowed in the side yard, of which the principle structure abuts. Chairman Donnelly stated they would ask the Petitioner about Vice Chairman Beattie's question. Commissioner Weir asked why there is a three-foot (3'-0") maximum for sidewalks. Ms. Lalagos replied that walkway width is limited to three feet for two primary reasons: to promote proper drainage and to allow for the flow of water through the side yard. Ms. Lalagos explained that Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —June 25, 2026 PZ-14-26 if the side yard were completely covered, it could deflect water onto adjacent properties or to other areas where it is not intended to drain. Ms. Lalagos stated that Public Works reviewed the location and width of the proposed walkway and had no concerns. Seeing no more questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Donnelly invited the Petitioner to the stand. Chairman Donnelly swore in the Petitioner, Sam Frasco of 504 South Albert Street. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner to provide a reason for expanding the walkway from three feet (T-0") to four feet (4'-0"). Mr. Frasco shared that due to his driveway being redone, he decided to also fill in the 12-inch gap between his existing sidewalk and his garage, for both aesthetics and to prevent water from entering the garage. Chairman Donnelly asked if Mr. Frasco's sidewalk is currently level with the garage, as they are usually a foot below to prevent issues with water getting in. Mr. Frasco said he does not believe it to be a foot below the garage, but that there is a slight difference in level between the two. Mr. Frasco reiterated that he wants to do this project because he feels it will also be aesthetically pleasing and will improve his property. Chairman Donnelly asked if Mr. Frasco had discussed this with his neighbors. Mr. Frasco confirmed that he talks to his neighbors every day and they would have no problem with it. Mr. Frasco stated that he does not understand one foot (1'-0") would make a difference. Mr. Frasco said he feels it would look more conforming if it all looked the same [referencing the driveway and sidewalk aligning]. Chairman Donnelly noted snow removal as one reason for the dimensions. Chairman Donnelly explained that residents are not allowed to shovel snow onto their neighbor's property and that having a sidewalk that goes to the property edge would increase the likelihood of that happening. Mr. Frasco noted that his neighbor most likely would not consider that an issue if it was as Mr. Frasco shovels the whole block anyway. Mr. Frasco also noted that he rarely shovels that section of pavement on his property as he and his family enter through the attached garage. Mr. Frasco stated that they only use that area during the winter to move the garbage cans to the street. Vice Chairman Beattie asked why Mr. Frasco would not just keep the sidewalk at three feet and move it closer to the garage, as he would not need to go through the zoning process that way. Vice Chairman Beattie shared he only asks as he is curious. Mr. Frasco stated he had not considered that before but does feel four feet (4'-0") would look better. Chairman Donnelly asked if Mr. Frasco accepts the conditions in the staff report. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —June 25, 2026 PZ-14-26 Mr. Frasco stated that he does. Mr. Frasco went on to share that he appreciates the Village's due diligence in sending out letters to roughly 150 of his neighbors but was distraught to see his name and address were listed on the letters. Mr. Frasco explained that he was a police officer for 27 years and does not know all the people in his area or who maybe involved in cases he has worked. Mr. Frasco stated that now 150 plus people know his residence, of which he was always protective about sharing. Mr. Frasco asked that the Village to consider listing, "The Resident of," on the legal notices, simply to protect the resident's identity. Mr. Frasco shared he did not feel it was necessary to include names. Chairman Donnelly stated they could ask Staff about it but that legally the Village must advertise the case. Mr. Frasco shared he has had people come to his door in the past due to his profession. Mr. Frasco asked that for the next person, the Village consider making this change for the sake of protecting the resident's identity. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditional use based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Vice Chairman Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Weir seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Weir, Beattie, Rogers, Costa, Donnelly NAYS: None The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request (6-0). After hearing one more item of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Rogers made a motion seconded by Commissioner Szymczak and the meeting was adjourned at 7:47 PM. Catherine Cook, Planning Intern Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —June 25, 2026 PZ-14-26