Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/25/2014 P&Z Minutes 29-14MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -29-14 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: PIN NUMBER: REQUEST MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Hearing Date: September 25b, 2014 1 Hatlen Avenue Krzysztof Dolubizno and Marzena Dolubizno September 10'', 2014 08-10-215-001 Variation- Rear Yard Setback Agostino Filippone Thomas Fitzgerald William Beattie Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chairman Sharon Otteman Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Krzysztof Dolubizno and Marzena Dolubizno Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist to approve the minutes of the August 28"', 2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 7-0. After hearing two (2) previous cases Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ -29-14, 1 Hatlen Avenue. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioners for PZ -29-14 are seeking a Variation to allow a ten foot (10') rear yard setback for a building addition at 1 Hatlen Avenue. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is a corner lot located at the southeast corner of Hatlen Avenue and Central Road. The existing improvements consist of a one-story single-family residence with related improvements. The structures, including the entrance and driveway, face Central Road. Ms. Andrade explained that the Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RI District to the west and south. The Village of Arlington Heights borders to the north and east, and consists of commercial and single-family residential. Ms. Andrade further explained that the Petitioners would like to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a one-story building addition at the east end of the existing home. The building addition would consist of a family room, mud room and an attached garage. The site plan indicates the building addition would be setback ten feet (10') from the rear yard property line when the Village Code requires a minimum twenty-five foot (25') rear yard setback. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting- September 25, 2014 PZ -29-14 Joseph Donnelly, Chair Ms. Andrade stated the front elevation plan indicates the building materials of the addition will consist of brick veneer, natural stone, and cedar siding. Ms. Andrade showed a table comparing the existing proposed improvements to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Ms. Andrade further explained the Subject Property currently complies with the Village's RI zoning regulations. With the exception of the rear yard setback, the proposed improvements would comply with the R1 zoning regulations. Ms. Andrade summarized the Standards for a Variation as the following: • 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 options of developing are limited due to the Subject Property being a corner lot and the variation to the rear yard setback would allow them to enjoy the Subject Property to its full potential. Ms. Andrade further stated, per the Petitioner, that the proposed improvements would provide the convenience of having extra living space (family room), a mud room, an attached garage, and a larger yard along the south property line for gardening. The Petitioners further state the proposed improvements would not be detrimental to the public or other property in the neighborhood. The proposed building addition would be one-story in height and designed to blend with the existing home and homes in the neighborhood. Ms. Andrade stated while staff understands the Petitioners' desire for the building addition, there is no hardship. The Subject Property is not atypical of other corner lots located in the Village subject to a rear yard setback. Ms. Andrade stated that Staff explored alternative options of providing extra living space and an attached garage while complying with Code requirements. A second floor addition or a one-story building addition in the interior side yard are two options that could be constructed and allow for an attached garage at the east end of the home while complying with Code requirements. Ms. Andrade stated that the Petitioner found the alternative options not feasible due to the costs and the modifications to the existing floor space that would be required. Ms. Andrade stated the Variation request for ten foot (10') rear yard setback does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a ten foot (10') rear yard setback along the east lot line, as shown in the plans prepared date stamped August 28, 2014, subject to the following conditions: 1) Obtaining written approval from all entities with rights to the ten foot (10') utility easement allowing the roof overhang to encroach into the easement. 2) Obtaining an IDOT permit for any work in the Central Road right of way." Ms. Andrade stated this case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting- September 25, 2014 PZ -29-14 Joseph Donnelly, Chair Chairman Donnelly swore in Kryzksztof & Marzena Dolubizno from 1 Hatlen Ave. Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Dolubizno stated they are trying to make more space for the family. They would like to add a small family room onto the home and have a mud room that connects to the garage. Mr. Dolubizno stated that he wants to move the garage from the back to the house and connecting it to the front of the home. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner if it is possible to move the garage one foot away from the easement so the eaves of the roof do not overhang in the easement. Mr. Dolubizno stated that they would have no problem complying with that condition. Chairman Donnelly stated that would take care of the issue by making the addition one (1') foot shorter. Mr. Simmons stated that if the petitioner gets sign off from the parties with rights to the easement it will not be an issue because you are allowed to have roof overhangs in the required yards. Chairman Donnelly asked if they get the sign off then the Petitioners can keep their design if the case gets passed on. Mr. Simmons stated that the easement sign off is a condition upon approval of the case. If they don't get the sign off approvals then the Petitioner would have to move the addition back one foot from the easement. Chairman Donnelly stated that if the utilities don't grant the easement then they would have adjust the project accordingly; however, for the sake of this evenings vote the current design and measurements will be voted upon. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any more questions for the petitioner. Commissioner Youngquist stated the case was difficult because the subject property is a corner lot which are typically problematic with expansions. Commissioner Beattie stated that it is difficult because majority of the homes were designed forty to fifty years ago when larger homes weren't the norm. Commissioner Youngquist stated that the project seemed like a lot to do just for another four hundred 400 square feet of living space. Chairman Donnelly said the current design makes the Petitioner lose a lot of the current space in the house. Commissioner Youngquist stated that the other cases requesting the similar variations on corner lots have been denied in the past. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting- September 25, 2014 PZ -29-14 Joseph Donnelly, Chair Chairman Donnelly stated based on the current circumstances just moving the garage up keeping it detached wouldn't be a problem; however, would they still be able to build the mudroom in between because they are close on FAR and light on lot coverage. Mr. Simmons stated that there needs to be a three foot (3') separation between two (2) structures per code. Commissioner Beattie asked if there would have to be an agreement between the utility carriers and the Village in order to allow a detached garage within the ten foot (10') easement. Ms. Andrade stated the Subject Property is an existing non -conforming structure which may have been built without the Village's knowledge of the easement or the easement may have been granted after the structure was constructed. Commissioner Beattie clarified that the current location of the detached garage is within the ten foot (10') easement. Ms. Andrade stated that was correct. Mr. Simmons clarified that the existing garage is in the easement but does comply with the zoning regulations for setbacks. He explained the minimum setback from the property line is five (5) feet; the easement provides additional restrictions on what the Petitioner can do on their property so that it would further restrict them to a ten (10) foot setback unless they get sign off from everyone with rights to the easement to allow the structure. Commissioner Youngquist stated he remembers one case that needed to get the utility sign off for a similar project and it took them over a year to do so. Commissioner Kueter asked what was to the east of the home. Ms. Andrade stated a single family residence with a circular drive is located to the east of the property which is considered Arlington Heights. Chairman Donnelly asked if the neighbors in Arlington Heights were notified. Ms. Andrade stated they were properly notified. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioners if they had talked to their neighbors about the project. Mr. Dolubizno said he did speak with the neighbors and they were in favor of the project. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens present to discuss the case; hearing none he brought the discussion back to the board. Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald to approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a ten foot (10') rear yard setback along the east lot line, as shown in the plans prepared date stamped August 28, 2014, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting- September 25, 2014 PZ -29-14 Joseph Donnelly, Chair 1) Obtaining written approval from all entities with rights to the ten foot (10') utility easement allowing the roof overhang to encroach into the easement. 2) Obtaining an IDOT permit for any work in the Central Road right of way." UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie, Kueter, Mizwicki, Filippone, Fitzgerald, Donnelly NAYS: Yongquist The vote was approved 6-1 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Village Board decision is final for this case. After hearing three (3) additional cases Commissioner Yongquist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to close the hearing and the meeting was adjourned at 9:09 pm. Jenna Moder Jenna Moder, Administrative Assistant Community Development Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting- September 25, 2014 PZ -29-14 Joseph Donnelly, Chair