Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/2014 P&Z Minutes 13-14MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -13 -14 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: May 22, 2014 421 Pine Street Drew Klee and Danielle Zimny May 7, 2014 03 -34- 130 - 001 -0000 Variation - Exterior Side Yard Setback Joseph Donnelly, Chair Norbert Mizwicki William Beattie Keith Youngquist Sharon Otteman Thomas Fitzgerald Agostino Filippone Jeanne Kueter None Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development Drew Klee and Danielle Zimny Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Miczwicki to approve the minutes of the April 20, 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 5 -0 with two Commissioners abstaining. After hearing one (1) previous case Chairman Donnelly introduced case PZ- 13 -14, 421 North Pine Street. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners for PZ -13 -14 are seeking a Variation to the exterior side yard setback in order to construct a porch at 421 North Pine Street. Ms. Andrade explained the Subject Property is located on the southeast corner of Pine Street and Memory Lane. The Subject Property contains a single- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property currently does not comply with the Village Code's exterior side setback requirement. The home is setback fifteen and six tenths (15.6) feet from the exterior side property line when the Village Code requires a minimum of twenty (20) feet. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners plan to remove the one story one -story portion of the home and the detached garage in order to construct a two -story building addition. The proposed improvements also include replacing the existing wood porch located in the exterior side yard with an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch would measure twenty six (26) feet wide by five (5) feet deep and would be setback ten and six tenths (10.6) feet from the exterior side yard property line when a minimum of twenty (20) feet is required. Ms. Andrade explained the proposed exterior side yard elevation plan indicates the porch would extend approximately half the width of the building. Ms. Andrade showed the following table comparing the existing and proposed improvements to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. She further stated the proposed improvements would comply with the RA bulk requirements. Ms. Andrade stated that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following 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. Ms. Andrade stated per the Petitioners, the Subject Property is located on a corner with the home's entrance located on the exterior side yard versus the front, which limits their ability to have a porch. She further explained they would like to construct a porch for privacy and security, as well as limit the weather related beatings the home endures along the north building elevation. The Petitioners further stated that the Subject Property is unique because the home is on a corner lot with the entrance facing the exterior side yard. Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property's characteristics are typical of most corner lots in the Village. Several homes are located on corner lots and are oriented towards the exterior side Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman RA Single Family District Requirements Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front (west) Min. 30' 34.1' No Change Exterior Side (north) Min. 20' 15.6' 10.6' Interior Side 'south Min. 5' 10' 5.15' Rear (east) Min. 25' 39.3' No Change F.A.R Max. .5 (3,017 sq.ft) .28 (1,670 sq.ft) .45 (2,739 sq.ft.) Lot Coverage Max. 50% (3,017 sq.ft.) 33.5% (2,022 sq.ft.) 35.59% (2,148 sq.ft.) Ms. Andrade stated that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following 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. Ms. Andrade stated per the Petitioners, the Subject Property is located on a corner with the home's entrance located on the exterior side yard versus the front, which limits their ability to have a porch. She further explained they would like to construct a porch for privacy and security, as well as limit the weather related beatings the home endures along the north building elevation. The Petitioners further stated that the Subject Property is unique because the home is on a corner lot with the entrance facing the exterior side yard. Ms. Andrade stated that the Subject Property's characteristics are typical of most corner lots in the Village. Several homes are located on corner lots and are oriented towards the exterior side Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman yard. Others also include nonconforming exterior side yard setbacks. For example, the corner properties adjacent to the Subject Property are oriented towards the exterior side yards and include non - conforming exterior side yard setbacks. The Petitioners would like to construct a porch further increasing the encroachment into the required exterior side yard. The Variation request does not meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The home's orientation and presence of a non - conforming setback do not constitute hardships. The Petitioners have the option to construct a porch/stoop measuring no more than eight (8) feet wide by five (5) feet deep as the Village Code permits such a structure as a permitted encroachment. Ms. Andrade stated based on the Staff s analysis, staff does not feel the request meet the Variation standards. Therefore, Staff recommends that the P &Z recommend denial of the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a ten and six tenths (10.6) foot exterior side yard setback, as shown in the attached plans dated October 12, 2013 for the residence at 421 N. Pine Street." Ms. Andrade stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked if the board if they had any questions for Staff. Commissioner Youngquist asked why the plat of survey shows a ten foot (10') building line along the north end of the property. Mr. Simmons stated that when the property was platted the zoning regulations didn't specify a twenty (20) foot setback in the area. He further explained that the requirements might have changed since it was originally platted. Ms. Andrade stated that the home was constructed in the late 1940's and the twenty (20) foot exterior side yard setback was added to the code in 1979. Chairman Donnelly stated per the drawings the second floor addition looks like it will extend further towards the street. Ms. Andrade stated that the two story addition would be setback sixteen and seven tenths (16.7) feet from the exterior side yard setback. Mr. Simmons stated that the Village's Zoning Code has provisions for lots that are fifty five (55) feet in width or less which would apply to the Subject Property because it only has a forty five (45) foot frontage along Pine Street. It allows the homeowner to expand the structure and maintain an existing non - conforming setback as long as it doesn't increase the extent of the non- conformity. Mr. Simmons further explained that the existing home is currently setback at fifteen and six tenths (15.6) feet and the two story addition would be situated behind that existing setback. By code the petitioner can build the two story addition because they won't be encroaching further into the setback. Mr. Simmons clarified that the Petitioner doesn't need a Variation for the two story addition because it is within the established setback; the proposed porch does need the Variation because it encroaches further upon the setback. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman Commissioner Beattie asked how far a front stoop can encroach into the side yard. Ms. Andrade stated that a front stoop can encroach five (5) feet into the side yard. Commissioner Miczwicki asked if the stairs leading to the stoop is included in the five (5) foot measurement. Mr. Simmons clarified that the stoop itself can encroach only five (5) feet but the steps can be however many are required to get up to the height of the stoop. Chairman Donnelly called the Petitioner to the stand and swore in Drew Klee 421 N. Pine Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056. Mr. Klee stated that the addition is needed for his growing family. He stated that the home is a Georgian style with a one story addition, which currently is an office space. He explained that they want to get rid of the one story addition and add much needed new space. Mr. Klee stated that they are requesting to increase the size of the front stoop in order to have more outdoor space. Mr. Klee stated that they are requesting to encroach only an additional six (6) inches from where the current stoop exists. He showed some pictures of the current and proposed stoop. Mr. Klee explained that the increased stoop would be in line with the current landscaping line of the home. He stated that the "look" of the proposed stoop will not be much different than what is currently there. Mr. Klee stated they purchased the home in 2007 and have done various improvements; however, they want to keep investing in the home and the community. He thanked the board for their time and consideration. Chairman Donnelly asked Staff if the board could add a condition limiting the variance to the proposed measurements of the stoop so the homeowners can't increase the size in the future without requesting another variance. Ms. Andrade stated the condition could be specific to the setback proposed as per the drawings. Commissioner Youngquist asked the Petitioner if he considered making the porch smaller. The Petitioner stated he did, but thinks the proposed size will look more aesthetically pleasing with the other improvements that are going to be done to the house. Commissioner Youngquist stated he doesn't agree with the proposal and that he believes a smaller porch would fit in with the current style of the home. Commissioner Filippone clarified that even though the porch will extend and additional six inches the porch will be built the entire length of the front of the home. Mr. Klee stated that was correct. Commissioner Youngquist stated that he feels that is too large of a front porch close to the sidewalk. There was general discussion about other homes in the neighborhood that have similar porches. Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman Chairman Donnelly asked if there was anyone else in attendance that wanted to discuss the case. Hearing none he closed the public portion of the case and brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie: "To approve a Variation to allow a ten and six tenths (10.6) foot exterior side yard setback, as shown in the attached plans dated October 12, 2013 for the residence at 421 N. Pine Street; with the condition that that the porch area can't be enclosed." Chairman Donnelly stated the case is Village Board Final. UPON ROLL CALL AYES Beattie, Kueter, Miczwiki, Otteman, Donnelly NAYS Fitzgerald, Youngquist The motion was approved 5 -2 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. After hearing additional cases Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie and the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm. JetWa Moder Administrative Assistant Planning and Zoning Commission May 22, 2014 PZ -13 -14 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman