Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2001 ZBA minutes 06-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-06-2001 Hearing Date: April 26, 2001 PETITIONER: Larry McKone, Contract Purchaser PUBLICATION DATE: March 28, 2001 Daily HeraM REQUEST: 1) Rezone the property from RX to R1 2) Lot Width variation MEMBERS PRESENT: Men'ill Cot~en Hal E~nger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Yonngquist Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Chuck Linclelof, Project Engineer INTERESTED PARTIES: Larry MeKone, 493 Haven, Arlington Hts. Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. The corrected minutes of the March 22, 2001 meeting were approved 5-0 with Merrill Cotten and Richard Rogers abstaining. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-06-01, a request to rezone a property and lot width variations. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case, a request to rezone the subject property and for lot width variations. She said that the subject property is the only lot on that block that is still zoned RX; all the other lots are zoned R1. She said that the RX zoning district requires properties to be 17,500 square feet and that the minimum lot size for the R1 district is 8,125 square feet. She said that the petitioner is in the process of subdividing the lot to create a two-lot subdivision. In doing so, two lots measuring 63.23 in width are created. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation for lot widths. Ms. Connolly said that the properties south of the subject property were rezoned, resubdivided, and received lot width variations in 1991, similar to the petitioner's request. She said that the subject property is located along a collector street among Single Family residences and a church, and that tlYe neighborhood is primarily single family residential. She said that rezoning the property to R1 and constructing two custom built homes would be compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning districts. She said that the proposed zoning district and use of the property is consistent with provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Connolly said that the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment, which require that the rezoning and proposed use be consistent and compatible with existing uses and zoning classifications, and be consistent with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioner's request to rezone the property meets the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking a variation for lot widths. She clarified that the Village Board would have to first rezone the property and then approve the plat of resubdivision, which creates two lots of record. In order to create two tots, the Zoning Board has to grant a variation for the lots because they will be less than 65-feet wide, which is the minimum requirement for the R1 zoning district. She said that the lot size is larger than what code requires and that the petitioner proposes to maintain 6.5-foot side yard setbacks. The Zoning Ordinance requires that side yard setbacks be 10' or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less, for the R1 district. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-06-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 She said that staff visited, the site and found that the subject property is adjacent to a detention basin and that the property south of the subject lot has a driveway and a garage close to the property line. Therefore, the petitioner cannot acquire property from either of the adjacent lots to meet Zoning bulk regulations. Ms. Connolly explained the standards for a variation, which relate to the petitioner being unable to meet code requirements because of physical characteristics of the property and how the request relates to the character of the neighborhood. She said that the petitioner's request meets the standards for a variation because he cannot acqu'tre the additional lot width needed and that several properties on this block were granted lot width variations. Therefore, the request is in keeping with the neighborhood character. Also, it does not endanger the public welfare or other properties. Ms. Cormolly said that the request to rezone the property meets the standards for a Map Amendment and that the requested lot width variations meet the standards for a variation. Therefore, staff recommends approval of Case ZBA- 06-01 at 1020 S. Linneman Road. She clarified that the Zoning Board will make a recommendation to Village Board on the Map Amendment (rezoning) request, but that the ZBA is final on the lot width variations. She said that the ZBA could grant the lot width variations subject to the property being rezoned and resubdivided. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if public notice had been given and Ms. Connolly said yes. The ZBA members discussed the possible size of the proposed homes, if they would be the same size as the existing homes in the area, and the impact on the area. There were concerns that the new homes would be out of character with the block. Ms. Connolly said that the new homes would have to meet current code requirements, including a .5 Floor Area Ratio, or come before the ZBA for relief from code. Chairperson Juracek clarified that the proposed homes are a separate matter and the case presented was for rezoning the property and for two lots that are 1.77' less than the requ'tred lot width. She asked the petitioner to present his case. Larry McKone, 493 E. Haven, Arlington Heights, IL, was sworn in. Mr. McKone testified that the first home that would be built would be a model/spec house and be between 3,000 to 3,500 square feet unless a buyer approached him with a specific floor plan. Mr. McKone said that he has been building houses in Mount Prospect for 25 years. There was discussion on what a model house was, how it could be modified for a specific buyer, and the cost of the proposed homes. At 7:53, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. Richard Rogers said that the new homes would benefit the neighborhood and the request met the standards listed in the Zoning ordinance. He moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of the Map Amendment request to rezone 1020 S. Linneman, Case No. ZBAo06-01 from RX to R1. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Ettinger Motion was approved 6-1. Richard Rogers moved to approve the lot width variation request to create two lots that are 63.23- feet wide subject to Village Board approving the Map Amendment and the Plat of Resubdivision, for 1020 S. Linneman, Case No. ZBA- 06-01. Liz Luxem seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Ettinger Motion was approved 6-1. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-06-2001 Arlene Jumcek, Chairperson Page 3 There was general discussion on tear-downs, housing trends for the community and the region, and why tear-downs may be necessary because it may be cost prohibitive to correct a structural defect. Chairperson Juracek introduced the next item under New Business, modifications to the Development Code, Chapter 16 of the Village Code. She said that despite the ZBA not being directly involved with this particular chapter of the code, she felt that the ZBA members would benefit by hearing a general overview of the proposed changes. She asked Ms. Connolly to review the memo included on the Zoning Board members recent packet. Ms. Connolly said that the latest step in modernizing Village codes and making the development process more "user friendly" was to clarify when and how the Development Code applies to developments. She said that currently, the Development Code is set-up in an "all-or-nothing" manner--either the whole code applies or it doesn't. She said that Chuck Lindelof of the Engineer Department worked extensively on creating "tiers of development", shown on the attached chart, to ensure that the Village's best interests were addressed without discouraging redevelopment and improving properties. Ms. Connolly reviewed the flow chart, and presented different scenarios where the "levels" of the code would be applicable to the project. She said that current code standards have required some projects to request exceptions from the code, and may have had the effect of discouraging others from proceeding. She explained how the code modifications would apply to possible redevelopment projects, and answered questions from the ZBA. There was discussion on how the Village would track developments to ensure that developments would meet the correct level of improvement and what the impact of changing the Development Code would have on future developments or redevelopment of sites. ZBA members asked how the code changes would benefit the Village or developers and recommended that staff look at including interior remodeling projects in the Project Classification. The ZBA asked about doing a project in phases and iftha code changes would create difficulties for the later aspects of the project because the initial improvements required a different "size" of infrastructure. Chuck Lindelof said that staff currently requires improvements to meet certain indush'y standards, which would be the same for the long-term improvements to the site. The general consensus was that the Development Code modification would benefit the Village without hindering development or redevelopment of a site. At 8:16 p.m., Rich Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J~y'~Z~ofi~fy, Senior I/lanner xkV//