Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/2009 P&Z minutes 23-09 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-23-09 Hearing Date: September 24, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 900 Tower Lane PETITIONER: Andrew Venamore of Airoom Architects PUBLICATION DATE: September 9, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-13-108-024-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Rear Yard Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beanie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Andrew Venamore, Steve Gewartowski, Paul Chartouni, Kay Petosa, Hardik Patel Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2009 meeting; Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 7-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-23-09, 900 Tower Lane, a request for a Rear Yard Setback Variation, at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated the Petitioner was requesting a Rear Yard Setback Variation for a proposed one story addition to the rear of the home. The property is located at the end of a cul-de-sac on Tower Lane. It is located in the Village's R-l Zoning District and currently contains a one story single-family residence. The subject property complies with the R-l District bulk requirements. Mr. Simmons showed a site plan of the proposed one story addition. It would be located in the northeast corner of the subject property. It would be a one story addition in the rear of the home. In order to construct the addition, the Petitioner requested relief from the rear yard setback requirement which required a 25 foot setback from the rear property line. Ms. Simmons said the Petitioner proposed a ] 7.46 foot rear yard setback, so they would be encroaching approximately 8.5 feet. Mr. Simmons presented a chart referencing the R I District Bulk Requirements: Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 33.39' No change Side (west) 7.75' 20.68' No change Side (east) 7.75' 13.67' 10.65' Rear 25' 27.79' 17.46' PZ-23-09 Page I of 5 Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 32% 36% Mr. Simmons re-stated that the property complied with all the bulk requirements. As proposed, there would be no changes to the front and side yard (west) setbacks; the sideyard (east) setback would be reduced 13.67 feet to 10.65 feet and still comply with the 7.75 foot requirement. The rear yard setback was the request for a Variation by reducing from the current setback of 27.79 feet to a proposed 17.46 feet. Mr. Simmons summarized the Variation Standards from the Zoning Code. He said a Variation could be supported if there was a hardship. Staff reviewed the proposed request and did have some concerns that were discussed with the Petitioner before the Variation request was submitted and provided some options. Mr. Simmons stated there was still a buildable area in the northwest corner of the property. The Petitioner could construct a second story addition to the home as it currently complies with the setbacks. Building the home up would have no effect on encroachments. Staff also reviewed lot dimensions for the property to determine if there were any unique qualities that were non existent to other properties in the Village. Mr. Simmons said the dimensions were slightly different for the immediate area as it sits on the bulb of the cul-de-sac. He compared this design to other cul-de-sacs in the Village. The subject property's design was consistent with other cul-de-sac lot dimensions. Staff reviewed the history of other cul-de-sacs in the Village to see if a Variation has been approved for a property similar to the subject property, no precedent has been set. Staff recommended denial of the Variation request. Chairman Rogers stated there was a drop off of two to three feet towards the back of the fence. He wanted to confirm there was a storm water inlet in the backyard. Mr. Simmons stated this was correct. Chairman Rogers said whatever was done in the backyard would affect the inlet. Mr. Simmons said Engineering placed conditions that no grading would be done on the subject property in the easement area. Mr. Roberts asked where the storm water inlet was located. Mr. Simmons did not know the exact location, but it was somewhere within the 8 foot easement along the north property line. Chairman Rogers swore in Andrew Venamore of Airoom Architects and Builders, 6825 N. Lincoln Avenue, Lincolnwood, Illinois. Mr. Venamore stated that he was proposing a kitchen and family room addition to the rear of the home encroaching into the rear yard setback. He showed an existing site plan with the building envelope and current setbacks. Mr. Venamore said the existing setbacks left him with little area to work with. Mr. Venamore acknowledged meeting with Staff to discuss alternatives for the addition to the east or west of the home or adding a second level addition. He stated that they proposed to add a room that the home currently does not have, a family room. Also, the Petitioner would be expanding the dining room that is located in the rear of the home. Due to the expansion of these two rooms, a second story addition would not make sense and was ruled out. Mr. Venamore said if an addition was added to the west side of the home where the bedrooms are located, they would have to reconfigure the entire layout of the home. The east side expansion did not work for the property owner as well. Mr. Venamore said the home was in need of modernization. The property owner has owned the home for 47 years. He stated that the only request was for a rear yard Variation, everything else with the project does comply with Code. Mr. Venamore discussed the comments by the Village's Engineering Department. He stated that there would be a 17.5 feet setback and would not be near the easement in the backyard. Mr. Venamore said the drainage is on the east side of the easement and he has no intention of disrupting the inlet and causing any problems. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 2 of 5 Mr. Venamore stated the Staffs report indicated there was no hardship for this case. He said the depth of the lot is less than 90 feet, this is the issue. Mr. Venamore showed a copy of the zoning map for the southern portion of the Village. He stated there are very few cul-de-sacs in the southern portion of the Village and that the Tower Lane cul-de-sac appeared to be smaller in size. Mr. Venamore said the subdivision ordinance states that if a new subdivision was created in the Village, it would have to have a minimum depth of 120 feet. Mr. Venamore stated he provided lot dimensions in the case packet provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Village Board. The subject property's depth is less than 95 feet, the next shortest in the surrounding neighborhood is 107 feet. Mr. Venamore said there was a hardship because no other properties in the immediate neighborhood have similar dimensions to the subject property. Mr. Venamore addressed other items in regards to the Variation standards. He re-stated that the homeowner has lived at the subject property for 47 years, there is no desire for financial gain as the homeowner intends to live in the house for many additional years. The Variation is intended to provide the owner a satisfactory home not financial gain. Mr. Venamore also addressed the public welfare and neighborhood character standard. He stated that he has designed an addition that was intended to look like the existing house and maintain the neighborhood character. Chairman Rogers swore in the property owner, Steve Gewartowski, 900 Tower Lane, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Gewartowski said it is congested in his home. He stated there was no room inside the kitchen. Mr. Gewartowski agreed that the easiest thing to do would be to build a second story addition, but due to medical reasons this would not be an option. He also stated that adding to the east or west of the home would make no sense. Mr. Gewartowski said this addition is being added for convenience, not for a profit. Mr. Venamore summarized Mr. Gewartoski's wishes to keep the layout as presented. Chairman Rogers stated a second floor could be installed on the property by moving the bedrooms upstairs and then creating the family room where the bedrooms were on the first floor. He understood that the owner's intentions were to avoid climbing stairs, but this was one alternative to the restrictions of the Code. Chairman Rogers said it is not normal to take the minimum easements out. He also understood that the subject property is an extremely short lot, but with the proposed plan is substantially into the rear yard easement and something they normally do not allow. Mr. Youngquist said the proposed floor plan does not show an expansion of the kitchen area. He stated the plans provided to the Planning and Zoning Commission showed the expansion to the back (rear) and (east) side of the home. Mr. Youngquist recommended that the Petitioner push the addition 2.5 feet into the rear yard, this would allow a nice size dining room and a 21 foot by 14 foot family room. Mr. Venamore showed an existing site plan with the proposed addition. There was general discussion regarding the size of the kitchen. Mr. Youngquist stated the family room proportionally was too large for the subject property. He asked the Petitioner if the basement was finished at the subject property. Mr. Gewartowski said the basement was finished. Mr. Youngquist reiterated that if the Petitioner would expand 2.5 - 3 feet to the rear and ran it east, the design would allow for a decent dining space, larger kitchen, and a family room. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner about the minimum lot length that was quoted at 120 feet, he wanted to know if that was measured from the curb to the back or is it measured on the side yard. Mr. Venamore stated that if a new subdivision was created the minimum dimension would be 120 feet. Mr. Simmons clarified that the measurement would be from the curb/front property line to the rear property line. It would not go along the sides due to the shape. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that the subject property length is significantly less than what current Code allows. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24,2009 PZ-23-09 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Floros asked if the subject property would not conform to today's standards. Mr. Simmons stated that the subject property is below the current requirements. Mr. Floros stated this would be a hardship; the property owner is stuck with something undersized. Mr. Foggy stated he agreed with Mr. Youngquist, he thought the Petitioner could design the addition with the same square footage, but with a slightly different configuration. He asked the Petitioner ifhe looked at the design with the current requirements. Mr. Foggy stated that there are other options. Mr. Venamore stated there was consideration to try and make the proposed plan work, but it was the desires of the homeowner to encroach into the rear yard setback. He said the lot commanded some sort of relief due to its irregular size. There was additional discussion on alternative options for the proposed addition. Chairman Rogers stated the Planning and Zoning Commission was not trying to redesign the subject property, they just wanted to show that there were other options that could work. Mr. Beattie asked where the 25 foot setback was on the site plan presented by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers said that based on the site plan, the Petitioner could extend the current home three feet and still be within the 25 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Youngquist asked for the dimensions of the kitchen. It was determined that it was approximately nine feet by 11 feet. Mr. Youngquist stated the kitchen is so small compared to the proposed family room. Mr. Gewartowski said the neighbors to the east and west of the subject property have no issues with the proposed plan. Chairman Rogers asked about the neighbor to the north. Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Chartouni, ] 0 I W. Sunset Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Chartouni stated his property is the parcel directly north of the subject property. He stated his major concern was not with the setback now, but in the future. Mr. Chartouni said that if the setback is granted and the house is sold, he would be stuck to something that is really close to his property. Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. Chartouni was supportive of a one story addition. Mr. Chartouni stated that this was correct, but he was concerned in the future if a second story was added. There was general discussion about the Variation and how it would run with the land forever. Mr. Simmons clarified that if the Variance was granted, the future land owner could build up on the new setback in the rear yard. Mr. Floros ask if the Planning and Zoning Commission could preclude other areas where the property owner could construct. Mr. Simmons said no conditions could be place. Mr. Floros asked if the height could be restricted in any way. Mr. Simmons stated he believed the Planning and Zoning Commission could place a restriction on the height. Mr. Floros suggested that the height of the proposed addition be limited. There was additional discussion regarding placing conditions on a Variation. Mr. Roberts asked in addition to restricting the height, could a stipulation be placed in the motion that the lot coverage could not increase any further. Mr. Simmons said this would not be enforceable because the property owner was still below the maximum permitted lot coverage. He stated that if a height limitation condition was placed, it would be anything within the Variation setback area. Chairman Rogers swore in Kay Petosa, 910 Tower Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Petosa stated her main concern was flooding. She said the water flows from the north near the subject property and heads south towards her property. Ms. Petosa said water from the neighborhood floods her home. She was concerned with all the new additions being added in the neighborhood that this would continue the flooding issues. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 4 of 5 Mr. Venamore wanted to clarify that the subject propel1y and properties to its north drain into the easement and inlet as previously discussed. He did not believe the proposed addition would cause significant flooding. Mr. Donnelly asked if there was ever standing water with the inlet. Mr. Gewartowski said never. Chairman Rogers swore in Hardik Patel, 103 W. Sunset Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Patel stated his property is also directly north of the subject property. He said his property is approximately one foot lower than the subject property. Mr. Patel stated that he will have approximately six inches of water that sits on the last five feet of his yard. Mr. Beattie asked how often Mr. Patel has this problem. Mr. Patel said usually when it rains more than a couple of hours five-six times a year. Chairman Rogers stated he was concerned if the addition went up; chances are the subject property would be resodded and the slope could be even higher. Chairman Rogers asked if anyone in the audience wanted to discuss this case. Hearing none, the discussion was brought back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 17.46' rear yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the attached drawings for the residence at 900 Tower Lane, Case No. PZ-23-09, with a condition to restrict the maximum height to one-story, not to exceed 15 '6". Mr. Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Roberts stated there is a shortage of senior housing in Mount Prospect. Regardless of the outcome of this case, a change in development will be seen that will not be suitable to seniors. He said would rather see one story additions than building large multiple level homes. Mr. Roberts requested ways to keep seniors in their home and the community. Mr. Roberts said the Planning and Zoning Commission needed to show flexibility at times and he believed there was an existing hardship in the case due to the size and shape of the lot. Chairman Rogers commented that there is a possibility to add a one-story addition without encroaching in the back. He asked if there was any additional discussion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Roberts NA YS: Beattie, Donnelly, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5-2. After hearing one additional case, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist, to adjourn at 8:33 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~//;J /} /4;' ~Yr-. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 24, 2009 PZ-23-09 Page 5 of 5