Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2012 P&Z Minutes 32-11MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -32 -11 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUESTS: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT INTERESTED PARTY: Hearing Date: January 26, 2012 1108 N. Elmhurst Road Linda Davis Januan- 11, 2012 03 -27 -305- 014 -0000 1) Variation to Increase Floor Area 2) Variation to Increase Overall Lot Coverage Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber, Alternate None Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Linda Davis Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve the minutes of the December 8, 2011 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 4 -0 Nvith Mr. Floros abstaining. Mr. Beattie arrived at 7:39 p.m. After hearing one (1) previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 32 -11, 1108 N. Elmhurst Road at 7:39 p.m. Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner for PZ -32 -11 requested Variations to increase the permitted floor area and lot coverage for the property located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is located on the Nvest side of Elmhurst Road and currently contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. Upon receiving a complaint, Village Staff conducted an inspection of the Subject Property in November 2011 and found that a two (2) stony building addition Nvas being constructed Nvithout a building permit. Consequently, Village Staff posted a Stop Work Order on the Subject Property. The Petitioner subsequently applied for a building permit, but Nvas denied by the Planning Division as the Subject Property exceeded the maximum floor area and lot coverage permitted. The Petitioner Nvas seeking a Variation to increase the floor area and overall lot coverage to allow the building addition to remain and be completed. Ms. Andrade said the two (2) stony building addition measures approximately eighteen (18) feet Nvide by twenty (20) feet deep. Per the Petitioner's floor plans, the addition Nvould consist of a bedroom on the first floor and a loft on the second floor. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 1 of 4 Ms. Andrade showed pictures framing and vinyl siding finish two (22) feet in height. that Nvere taken during inspections that indicated the building addition's Nvood Upon completion, the building addition would measure approximately twenty- Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table: Ms. Andrade stated the table compared the Petitioner's proposal to the RX District's bulls requirements. The Subject Property consists of nonconformities that include the principal structure, floor area, and lot coverage. The principal structure is setback eight and one half (8.5) feet from the north property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. With the two (2) story building addition, the floor area increased from 6,463 square feet to 7,088 square feet, which exceeds the maximum 7, 000 square feet floor area permitted. In regards to overall lot coverage, it currently measures fifty -eight (58) percent, when the maximum permitted is thirty -five (35) percent. The Petitioner Nvas seeking Variations to allow increases to floor area and lot coverage. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The folloNving is a summary of these findings: 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 Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner mentioned that the replacement of the Nvood deck area Nvith the building addition did not affect the lot coverage. While the petitioner stated that the lot coverage did not change, the lot existing coverage Nvas non - conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply Nvith Code requirements. The Petitioner also stated that the building addition is for a family member in declining health. Staff understood the Petitioner's personal needs for the addition; however, it does not constitute a hardship. The alleged hardships presented in this case have therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which Nvould not exist elsewhere Nvithin the Village. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that the Nvork Nvas started Nvithout permit, and then stopped, and then the Petitioner applied for the permit. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 4 RX District Minimum Requirements W/O Building Addition W/ Building Addition Setbacks: Front Min. 40' 49.58' No change Interior Side Yard (N.) Min. 10' 8.50'(non- conformin) No change Interior Side Yard (S.) Min. 10' 18.17' No change Rear Min. 30' 54.76' 50.74' Building Height Max. 35' 21' -8" No change Floor Area Max. 7,000 sq.ft. (35) 6,463.63 sq.ft. (32) 7,088.63 sq.ft. ( 3544) Lot Coverage Max. 7,000 sq.ft. (35 %) 11 240.63 sq.ft. (56 %) (non-conforming) 11,600.63 sq. t. (58.02%) Ms. Andrade stated the table compared the Petitioner's proposal to the RX District's bulls requirements. The Subject Property consists of nonconformities that include the principal structure, floor area, and lot coverage. The principal structure is setback eight and one half (8.5) feet from the north property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of ten (10) feet. With the two (2) story building addition, the floor area increased from 6,463 square feet to 7,088 square feet, which exceeds the maximum 7, 000 square feet floor area permitted. In regards to overall lot coverage, it currently measures fifty -eight (58) percent, when the maximum permitted is thirty -five (35) percent. The Petitioner Nvas seeking Variations to allow increases to floor area and lot coverage. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The folloNving is a summary of these findings: 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 Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner mentioned that the replacement of the Nvood deck area Nvith the building addition did not affect the lot coverage. While the petitioner stated that the lot coverage did not change, the lot existing coverage Nvas non - conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply Nvith Code requirements. The Petitioner also stated that the building addition is for a family member in declining health. Staff understood the Petitioner's personal needs for the addition; however, it does not constitute a hardship. The alleged hardships presented in this case have therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which Nvould not exist elsewhere Nvithin the Village. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that the Nvork Nvas started Nvithout permit, and then stopped, and then the Petitioner applied for the permit. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 2 of 4 Chairman Rogers sNyore in the property oN -,ner, Linda Davis, 1108 N. Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Davis stated that her request Nyas to build an addition to her home for an immediate family member N-, is in declining health. She said the request for the room addition Nyould be built on an existing deck. Ms. Davis discussed that she Nyas given a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) in 2004 Nyith the deck already in place. She did not believe by replacing the deck Nyith the room addition Nyould affect the impervious surface on the Subject Property. Ms. Davis said her husband is the General Contractor on the proposed project. She stated that they knevy they needed permits for the project, but they Nyere tn-ing to accommodate her mother. Ms. Davis discussed that the proposed addition Nyould be private living space for her mother. Chairman Rogers confirmed that there are four (4) existing bedrooms at the Subject Property. Ms. Davis said there are three (3) bedrooms on the first floor and one (1) bedroom on the second floor. She stated that her mother could not utilize the second floor bedroom. The proposed living space Nyould be close to a first floor bedroom. Ms. Davis said the other bedrooms are occupied by her and her husband and her daughters. There Nyas additional discussion on the Nyork being conducted Nyithout permit. Mr. Donnellv asked if the Petitioner looked into other Nyays of reducing the impervious surface so the room addition Nyould comply. Ms. Davis said she Nyould need to talk Nyith her husband, but asked if she Nyere to reduce some of the impervious surface Nyould she still be alloyed to build the addition. Mr. Donnelly asked Staff if the amount of impervious surface on the Subject Property Nyas grandfathered in or Nyas the Subject Property alwa -,Ts a part of the Village. Mr. Simmons said N-, the Subject Property Nyas originally developed and issued permits in the 1980's there Nyas no lot coverage requirement. The lot coverage requirement Nyas not in effect until the earIv 1990's. There Nyere floor area ratio requirements at the time the original permit Nyas issued. Mr. Simmons stated that there are non - conforming provisions in the Code that alloNy existing conditions on properties that do not meet current Code to be grandfathered in. HoNvever the Petitioner is modIA-ing the property and Nyould need to conform to the current Code. There Nyas additional discussion regarding bringing the Subject Property s lot coverage into compliance Nyith the Code. The consensus among the Commissions Nyas that the property Nyould have to be brought doN -,n significantly from 11,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet in order to comply Nyith Code. Mr. Youngquist said that Nyith the N-, the Code has been Nyritten, there Nyas no way- the addition could be alloNved. Ms. Davis asked if the property Nyas no longer grandfathered in on lot coverage because the deck Nyas removed. Mr. Simmons stated that Nyas correct. He said the non - conforming provisions are N-, Nyere grandfathered in. As soon as any part of the structure is removed Nyith current zoning, the "grandfather clause" from the non- conforming code section is lost. Mr. Youngquist discussed Nyith the addition that the Petitioner is also over on the floor area ratio (FAR). There Nyas discussion on having the Petitioner remove the second floor of the proposed addition; hovyever the lot coverage Nyould still be over N-, the current Code alloNys. There Nyas additional discussion regarding the Petitioner's living situation in relation to N-, the proposed addition Nyould provide. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner investigated purchasing the lot to the south that Nyas in foreclosure. Ms. Davis stated that she has looked into purchasing the property in question, but the bank and attorneys for the property to the south Nyould not speak to her. She said the home to the north is in disarray and Nyas not interested in purchasing the property. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could purchase the land to the north, demolish the existing home and make the Subject Property and the property to the north one (1) lot of record. Ms. Davis stated that this Nyould be really costly for her. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case at 8:00 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Ms. Hinaber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve a Variation to increase the floor area from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 7,088.63 square feet (35.44 %); and a Variation to increase the overall lot coverage from 7,000 square feet (35 %) to 11,600.63 square feet (58.02 %) for the residence located at 1108 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ- 32 -11. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers The motions Nvere denied 6 -0. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. After hearing one (1) additional case, Chairman Rogers asked if there Nvere any citizens in the audience Nvaiting to be heard. Hearing none, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Ms. Hinaber to adjourn at 9:21 p.m. The motion Nvas approved by a voice vote and the meeting Nvas adjourned. Rvan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -32 -11 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2012 Page 4 of 4