Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/23/2010 P&Z minutes 12-10 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -12 -10 Hearing Date: September 23, 2010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1 S. William Street PETITIONER: Andrew Venamore on behalf of Patrick Szyska PUBLICATION DATE: September 8, 2010 PIN NUMBER: 08 -12- 202 - 023 -0000 REQUEST: Variation (Exterior Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy MEMBERS ABSENT: Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Andrew Venamore, Patrick Szyska Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 22, 2010 meeting; Mr. Foggy seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4 -0; with Mr. Beattie abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 12 -10, 1 S. William Street at 7:35 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -12 -10 requested a Variation to the required exterior side yard setback for a building addition at 1 S. William Street. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located at the southeast corner of the intersection at Central Road and William Street. The property is zoned RA and presently contained a single - family residence with related improvements, which included a detached garage and shed. There were a number of nonconforming items, including the front and exterior yard setbacks of the home, the garage's side yard setback to the south, and the number of curb cuts. These items are considered non - conforming and would not change with the Petitioner's proposal. Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property was created via a tax subdivision versus a platted lot. The legal description for the property included lot of record number 22 and the northerly 25 feet of lot number 21, as platted in the Busse's Eastern Addition to Mount Prospect Subdivision. Ms. Andrade said the lot width of the Subject Property is 79.76 feet, which is wider than the majority of the surrounding properties which average a width of 55 feet. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to demolish the existing sunroom and construct a two story building addition to the rear of the home. The building addition would allow the property owner to construct a larger sunroom on the first floor and would add a third bedroom to the second floor. The addition would be setback 12.19 feet from the exterior side yard, which would encroach by 7.8 feet into the required 20 foot exterior side yard setback. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking a Variation. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -12 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 23, 2010 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade referenced the bulk regulations table: RA Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements Setbacks: Front 30' 23' No change Exterior (north) 20' 9.81' 12.19' Side (south) 5' 32.76' No Change Rear 25' 81.38' 71.97' Lot Coverage 50% Maximum 35% 36% Ms. Andrade said there would be no changes to the existing front and side yard setbacks. The lot coverage would increase from 35% to 36 %, which was under the maximum 50% permitted lot coverage. The proposed 12.19 foot exterior side yard setback was the only item of the proposal that required zoning relief from the Village Code's bulk regulations. Ms. Andrade stated the standards for a Variation in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance included seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Some of the findings included: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said Staff discussed an alternative option with the Petitioner that would allow for extra living space while complying with Code requirements. A second story addition at the southeast corner of the house versus at the northeast corner of the house was an option that could be constructed to comply with Code. The Petitioner found the option was not feasible due to the current interior configuration of the home; including a stairwell and location of the rear exit. Ms. Andrade said the presence of a non - conforming setback was not unique to this property and did not provide justification for support of a setback variation. Although surrounding lots are narrower in width, non - conforming setbacks are also present in other properties in the area. The purpose of the non - conforming section of the Village Code was to allow non - conforming structures to remain, but to be brought up to compliance over time. Ms. Andrade said in this case, a building addition could be constructed on the Subject Property that complied with a 20 foot exterior setback. Therefore, the exterior side yard Variation request failed to meet the standards for a Variation because there was no hardship for the Subject Property. Ms. Andrade stated that based on the review of the Variation standards, Staff did not believe that the Variation requests complied with the standards. Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motion. Chairman Rogers asked if Staff spoke with the Petitioner about moving the addition to conform to the Code. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff did present this option to the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers swore in Andrew Venamore of Airoom LLC, Lincolnwood, Illinois and Patrick Szyska, 1 S. William Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -12 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 23, 2010 Page 2 of 4 Mr. Venamore stated that the project is a two -story addition to the rear of the home. He said the driving force behind the project was a growing family that needed the additional living space. The owner would like to have all of the bedrooms on the same floor. Currently, there is one bedroom being utilized on the first floor. Mr. Venamore said the only option they have would be as shown in the Staff packet. They had to make the new bedroom fit with the existing stairwell and two bathrooms in the rear of the home. Mr. Venamore stated that the existing house was already non - conforming. He said the hardship existed within the existing conditions of the home. Mr. Venamore said that he and his client did look at compliance alternatives for the addition, but they did not work due to the existing rear door and proposed bedroom addition on the second floor. He said that if the addition was slid down to make it comply with Code, the entrance from the sunroom would be at a low level and one would have to step up to get into the kitchen. The second means of ingress into the floor would be closed off. Chairman Rogers asked if there would be a basement under the addition. Mr. Venamore said a basement was not planned. He said it would be just a crawl space underneath. Mr. Venamore said that Mr. Szyska took a copy of the site plan, elevation, and photos of the proposed addition and presented it to the immediate six neighbors who surround the property. All six property owners signed off on the proposal with no objections. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner considered moving the addition eight (8) feet to the south in order to comply with the 20 foot setback and adding an entry to the sun room. Mr. Venamore said that moving the addition to the south would cover the rear entrance. There was additional discussion on how moving the addition would affect the first and second story additions. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the Petitioner by moving the sun room addition eight (8) feet, that the existing doorway to the kitchen would be lost along with the rear entry door to the house. Mr. Beattie asked what the length was of the existing sun room. Mr. Venamore said it was 7.5 feet. With the addition, the room would be 17 feet total. Mr. Venamore reiterated that the main goal of this project was to get everyone sleeping on the same floor. He did not want to extend the house more than what was necessary. Chairman Rogers said there is a driveway out to Central Road that was currently not in use. He asked Mr. Szyska if he would have any objections to removing the driveway if the Variation was granted. Mr. Szyska stated that he would not object as the driveway to Central already existed before he purchased the property. Chairman Rogers said there were a lot of non - conforming uses on the Subject Property. Mr. Floros asked how long Mr. Szyska has owned the Subject Property. Mr. Szyska said he has owned the property for three years, but has been a village resident for the past 17 years. Mr. Floros asked how old was the home. Mr. Szyska stated between 81 and 82 years old. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Beattie discussed one of the conditions in the motion regarding platting the property as one lot of record; he asked how long of a process would it take. Ms. Andrade stated that it would be an Administrative Review process for a consolidation plat. The overall process once Staff received a plat would be to route for staff review, comments, and revisions. The total time is approximately four to five weeks. Chairman Rogers confirmed that this could be completed while constructing would be done on the home. Mr. Donnelly made a motion: Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -12 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 23, 2010 Page 3 of 4 To approve a Variation to allow a 12.19 foot exterior side yard setback along the north lot line for the residence at 1 S. William Street, Case No. PZ -12 -10 subject to the following conditions: 1. The Subject Property shall be platted as one lot. A final plat is required to be submitted for review and approval. The plat shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building addition; and 2. The curb cut on Central Road shall be removed and improved appropriately. Central Road is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation; work within the right -of -way will require approval from this agency. Mr. Beattie seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5 -0. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Foggy to adjourn at 8:03 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -12 -10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 23, 2010 Page 4 of 4