Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2012 P&Z Minutes 25-12 Part 2MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -25 -12 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: December 13, 2012 317 S. Emerson Street Stanlev Koscinus October 10, 2012 08 -12- 121 - 021 -0000 Variation to the driveway extension allowed beyond the opening of the garage door Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Tom Fitzgerald Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber Keith Youngquist None Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Peter Stamatis, Stanlev Koscinus Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Ms. Hinaber made a motion, seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes Nvere approved 5 -0 N ith Mr. Beattie and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 25 -12, 317 S. Emerson Street at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ -25 -12 Nvas requesting a Variation to increase the driveway extension allowed beyond the opening of the garage door for the property located at 317 S. Emerson Street. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property included a one (1) car attached garage and drivewav that measure just over twelve (12) feet N ide. Ms. Andrade stated from the opening of the garage door, the existing drivewaN- extends one (1) and a half (1/2) feet towards the front door. The Petitioner owns two (2) vehicles and has been parking them side -by -side. Since the drivewaN- is not Nvide enough for two (2) vehicles, the Village's Police Department has ticketed the Petitioner for parking on the grass. In response, the Petitioner Nvould like to expand the drivewaN- an additional eight (8) feet for a total N-, dth of 20.27 feet. Ms. Andrade said as proposed, the drivewa -,T Nvould extend a total of nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door when the Village Code limits the extension to a maximum of three (3) feet. Variation approval is required to allow the driveway to extend nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door. Section 14.2215 of the Village Code limits the driveway edge that is on the interior of the yard, as Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 4 opposed to the edge of the drivewaN- to the perimeter lot line to a maximum three (3) feet beyond the opening of the garage. Ms. Andrade stated 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 summary of these findings include: A hardship due to the ph -,Tsical 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 propertv,* Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and Protection of the public Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner noted in his application that the drivewaN- expansion Nvas necessary to allow for the second vehicle to be parked on an approved surface and avoid getting ticketed by the Police Department. Prior to applying for the Variation, Village Staff discussed an option Nvith the Petitioner to expand the existing drivewaN- while meeting code requirements. A driveway extension of one (1) and a half (1/2) feet to the north and four (4) and seven (7) tenths feet to the south Nvould provide a drivewa -,T Nvidth of eighteen (18) and a half (1/2) feet N ide and Nvould be alloNved by Village Code. The Petitioner found this option undesirable and financially prohibitive due to the existing grade difference between the drivewa -,T and the south end of the property. Ms. Andrade stated while staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a larger driveway, there Nvere no unique conditions that existed on the Subject Property that Nvould not exist in other properties. The Subject Property complies Nvith the Village Code's two (2) space parking requirement for a single - family dwelling. The Subject Property currently provides one (1) parking space in the attached garage and one (1) parking space in the drivewaN-. The alleged hardship presented in this case is directly related to the Petitioner's own use of the property. Ms. Andrade said the Variation request to allow a driveway to extend nine (9) and a half (1/2) feet beyond the opening of the garage door did not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this finding, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt its findings in the Staff Report as the findings of the Commission and recommend denial of the motion listed in the report. The subject case is Village Board final. Chairman Rogers swore in Attorney Peter Stamatis, 77 W. Wacker, Chicago, Illinois, and the Petitioner Stanley Koscinus, 317 S. Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Chairman Rogers asked if Mr. Stamatis registered Nvith Staff before the meeting. Mr. Stamatis stated he did not as he Nvas contacted earlier in the afternoon by the Petitioner. He stated the Petitioner Nvas not feeling Nvell and asked him to help facilitate at the public hearing. Chairman Rogers said that he Nvanted Mr. Stamatis to be held to the same standards that the Village has for everyone, but realized that he Nvas an attornev and did not have be sworn in. He confirmed that Mr. Stamatis Nvould register Nvith Staff after the hearing. Mr. Stamatis discussed the south side of the property where Staff recommended the drivewa -,T could be expanded without a Variation. He said the drop off on this side of the property Nvould make the drivewaN- expansion not practicable. Mr. Koscinus stated that the drop off on the south side of the property Nvas approximately sixteen (16) inches. Mr. Stamatis and Mr. Koscinus both agreed that the neighbors to the south Nvould not like the drivewaN- expanded in their direction. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the Petitioner has the higher side of the slope on his side of the property and stated that the drivewa -,T could be extended to the property line. He asked how much space there Nvas between the end of the drivewaN- and the property line. Mr. Koscinus said the drivewaN- could be extended, but there's a Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 4 sideNvalk underneath that goes up on an angle. Chairman Rogers also mentioned that the Petitioner could place a stair or two off the end of the driveway. Mr. Stamatis stated that the Petitioner could install a sideNvalk extending from the front entry stainyell to the sidewalk on the north side of the drive Nvav Nvithout anv Variation. He said the only issue Nvould be the existence of a car slight1v in front of the house; the sideNvalk Nvould not cover the entire front of the house and probably not even the entire length of the front stairs. There Nvas general discussion regarding construction costs if concrete Nvas placed on either side of the driveway. The Petitioner believed by placing concrete on the north side Nvould be more cost effective than breaking up the concrete and adding a step doN -,n on the south side. Mr. Beattie stated the concern from the Zoning Code Nvas turning the front yard into a parking lot. Mr. Koscinus stated the main factor for increasing the driveway size Nvas to prevent any additional tickets being issued by the Police. He stated his intention is not to park the car as far to the north as possible. The Commission asked the Petitioner whN- a vehicle could not be parked in the garage. Mr. Koscinus said there Nvas another vehicle in the garage. He stated that the issue Nv th the drivevmv Nvas how the house Nvas built. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner Nvould consider expanding on the south side as opposed to obtaining the Variation. Mr. Koscinus stated that if he had no choice, he Nvould look into that option. He did not believe it Nvould look aesthetically pleasing if it Nvas expanded to the south. Chairman Rogers did not believe the driveway Nvould look good in front of the front door and living room window. Mr. Fitzgerald said that if the Petitioner expanded to the south, the neighbor Nvould still look at the driveway at a higher grade; just closer to the property line. The step off Nvould remain identical to the existing drivevmy Mr. Youngquist stated that the existing drivevmv currentIv does not have anything protecting it from a vehicle driving off of it to the south. He recommended that if the Petitioner Nvould expand to the south, then he could add a six (6) inch curb or whatever the Village Code allows to add some protection. He did not believe the neighbors Nvould object to adding the driveway to the property line as it's alloNved by Code. Mr. Youngquist stated that the Petitioner could then add some steps off of the driveway to the sideNvalk that leads to the backyard. Mr. Youngquist could not envision another nine (9) and one (1) half feet to the north of the existing drivevmy. He stated by adding to the south Nvould align the driveway better to the home. 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 7:50 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board. Chairman Rogers asked Staff how much space Nvas between the end of the south side of the drivevmv to the lot line. Ms. Andrade stated 4.87 feet. Chairman Rogers stated that two (2) vehicles could be parked on a seventeen (17) foot driveN ay without any issues. Mr. Youngquist confirmed Nv th Staff that the Petitioner could legally add one (1) and one -half (1/2) feet to the north of the drivevmy as Nvell. The total drivevmy could be eighteen (18) to nineteen (19) feet Nvthout a Variation. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he Nvould like to adjust the proposal according to the recommendations made by the Commission. Mr. Stamatis agreed Nv th the recommendations and Staff confirmed that no Variations Nvould be needed to add the drivevmv to the lot line. Ms. Beattie made a motion, seconded by Mr. Floros to approve a Variation request to increase a driveway extension from three (3) feet to nine and a half (9.5) feet beyond the opening of the garage door for the residence located at 317 S. Emerson Street. Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 3 of 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Beattie, Donnelly, Fitzgerald, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers The motion Nvas denied 7 -0. This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. After hearing one (2) additional cases, Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:16 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 -25 -12 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 4 of 4