Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2013 P&Z Minutes 10-13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-10-13 Hearing Date: July 25, 2013 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 N. Pine Street PETITIONER : Randy Murphy PUBLICATION DATE: July 10, 2013 PIN NUMBER(s): 03-34-321-017-0000 REQUESTS: Variation (Rear Yard Setback for Patio) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly, Chair Tom Fitzgerald William Beattie Leo Floros Jacqueline Hinaber Sharon Otteman MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Randy Murphy Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hinaber to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 6-0. After hearing three (3) previous cases, Chairman Donnelly introduced the case PZ-10-13; 100 North Pine Street which he stated was Village Board Final. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner is requesting a Variation to the rear yard setback in order to install a patio on the property. The Subject Property is bounded by Russel Street to the west, Henry Street to the south, and Pine Street to the east. He also stated that the Subject Property is non-conforming because the principal structure encroaches into the required rear yard. The house is setback approximately six feet (6’) from the west property line when the Zoning Code requires a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’). Additionally, the existing concrete patio does not comply with the required interior side yard setback. Mr. Simmons further explained that the existing patio is setback less than one foot (1’) away from the north property line, when the Zoning Code requires a minimum five foot (5’) setback. These structures are legal nonconformities and are allowed to remain; however, the proposed patio would be setback eight feet (8’) from the rear yard property line. Mr. Simmons stated by code the Petitioner could install a patio up to fifteen feet (15’) from the rear yard property line but the Petitioner is requesting to extend an additional seven feet (7’) into the required yard. Mr. Simmons showed the table below to the Commission comparing the Petitioner’s proposal to the RA Single Family Residence District bulk requirements: Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-10-13 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 25, 2013 Page 1 of 4 RA Single Family District Existing Proposed Requirements Setbacks: Front (east) Min. 30’ 30.11’ (building) No Change Exterior Side (south) Min. 20’ 52’ (building) No Change Interior Side (north) Min. 5’ 5.80’ (building) No Change .15’ (patio) No Change Rear (west) Min. 25’(building) 6’ (building) No Change Min. 15’ (patio) 20’ (patio) 8’(patio) Lot Coverage 50% Max. 31.6% 33.7% Mr. Simmons clarified that the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to an eight foot (8’) rear yard setback. He explained an alternative plan that the Petitioner could adopt which would not require a Variation. Mr. Simmons explained the standards for a Variation which are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance; the following list 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 welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Simmons stated that this property is unique in shape; however, in looking at the property there are other ways in which the property could be developed which will increase the patio area and still be in compliance with the code. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner’s request is to increase the existing size of their patio to provide more usable space on the lot. The proposed location and design requires a variation when other areas of the site can accommodate a patio area and still meet code. Therefore, staff believes that the proposed increase would be specifically for the owner’s use of the property and the hardship not directly related to the provisions of the Zoning Code Mr. Simmons stated that Community Development received comments regarding the case. He explained one comment was in favor of the variance and the other comment was opposed. Mr. Simmons stated that based on Staff’s review, the Variation request for an eight-foot (8’) rear yard setback for a patio does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. He further explained Staff recommends that the board deny the following motion: Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-10-13 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 25, 2013 Page 2 of 4 "To approve a Variation to allow an eight-foot (8’) rear yard setback for a patio along the west lot line for the residence at 100 N. Pine St., Case No. PZ-10-13." Mr. Simmons stated that this case is Village Board Final. Chairman Donnelly asked if a condition could be placed on the existing plan that would limit the setback to just the patio area in question. Mr. Simmons explained that the variation would only apply to the eight feet (8’) along the specified property line for a patio surface and would not apply to any other primary or accessory structures; therefore, a condition is not needed. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any regulations regarding two separate paved areas that “blend” into one another. Mr. Simmons stated that the paved areas need to be different in color to differentiate between the two paved areas in order to comply with code. Commissioner Beattie asked if a condition could be placed if the variance were to get approved stating the Petitioner could not extend the patio south of the building line. Mr. Simmons stated the board could place a condition on the Variance which would not allow the patio to encroach further south than the foundation line of the structure. Chairman Donnelly called the Petitioner to the stand and swore in Randy Murphy, 100 North Pine Street. He asked the Petitioner to explain why he was requesting the variance and what his plans were. Mr. Murphy showed a photograph of the space he wants to turn into a concrete patio. He explained that he views it as a home improvement and that his neighbors directly across the street from him are in favor of the idea. Mr. Murphy further explained that the majority of the patio would only be seen from Russel Street and by doing this he hopes to gain more usable space. Mr. Murphy commented on the Staff’s alternative recommendation of placing the patio along the side yard. He stated that it would look like a huge “parking lot” on the south side of the house which would be visible from the entire neighborhood. Mr. Murphy stated that he also had the apron, driveway, and walkway poured with new concrete the same day as the hearing. He stated that his contractors pitched the driveway to the south side of the property to help with a drainage issue he has been having. He also commented that the patio will also help with keeping water from seeping into the house. Chairman Donnelly confirmed the Petitioner’s property is at thirty-three percent lot coverage and was still within the required amount for the Subject Property’s zoning district. Chairman Donnelly verified the Petitioner understood the conditions the board could place on the variance. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked the Petitioner if the drainage issue would be affected by the strip of landscaping he planned on placing around a portion of the patio. Mr. Murphy explained how the driveway was pitched and the water would effectively drain to Pine Street, he stated the few shrubs he will plant will not interfere with the drainage. Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-10-13 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 25, 2013 Page 3 of 4 Chairman Donnelly asked the board if they had any more questions for the Petitioner, hearing none he opened the public portion of the meeting. Chairman Donnelly swore in Paul Church, 100 North Russel. Mr. Church stated that he lives across the street from the Petitioner and his property directly faces the area where the patio would be constructed. Mr. Church explained that he is in favor of the project and would be a welcomed improvement to the “look” of the home. Mr. Church also spoke on behalf of two other neighbors that were in favor of the project as well. Chairman Donnelly closed the public portion of the meeting and asked the board if they had any further questions for the Staff. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if the board could place a condition that states no further construction could occur along the side of the garage facing North on Russel. He clarified that he would like to approve exactly what the proposal shows. Mr. Simmons stated the board could place a condition which will limit the Variance to east of the driveway and north of the south foundation line. The board was in agreement of the condition and so was the Petitioner. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald to approve the Variation to allow an eight foot (8’) rear side yard setback for a patio along the west lot line for the residence at 100 North Pine, with the condition that the patio can’t extend further south then the south building line or further west then the existing eastern garage foundation line. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Fitzgerald, Beattie, Hinaber, Floros, Otteman, Donnelly NAYES: None The motion was approved 6-0. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. After hearing two (2) additional cases, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ______________________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant Joseph Donnelly, Chair PZ-10-13 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting July 25, 2013 Page 4 of 4