Loading...
2019-01-22 - Ordinance 2019-001 - APPROVING A VARIATION TO THE VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 964 COOPER COURT VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE COUNTIES, ILLINOISORDINANCE NO.2019-001 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A VARIATION TO THE VILLAGE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 964 COOPER COURT VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Buffalo Grove is a Home Rule Unit by virtue of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and, WHEREAS, 964 Cooper Court is legally described in Exhibit A hereto (the "Property"), and, WHEREAS, the petitioner, owner of the Property, recently improved their existing driveway after receiving a driveway permit from the Village of Buffalo Grove; and, WHEREAS, after an inspection was conducted, it was found the driveway was expanded beyond what was shown on the approved permit, resulting in the need for a variation for front yard coverage; and, WHEREAS, the petitioner has requested a variation to expand their driveway in accordance to the documents and information submitted pursuant to Exhibit B; and, WHEREAS, the Village Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 19, 2018 concerning the petition for a variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance for a driveway to exceed the maximum forty percent (40%) front yard coverage; and, WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission determined that the testimony, as identified in the minutes attached as Exhibit C and presented by the petitioner at the public hearing, demonstrated that the requested variations are warranted based on the unique circumstances and found that the petition met the standards for a variation; and, WHEREAS, the Plan Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval of the requested variation of the Village Zoning Ordinance to allow a driveway to have a maximum forty six percent (46%) front yard coverage. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE, COOK AND LAKE COUNTIES, ILLINOIS: Section 1. The preceding whereas clauses are hereby incorporated herein. Section2. The Corporate Authorities hereby grant a variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a driveway expansion only as set forth on Exhibit B. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. This Ordinance shall not be codified. AYES: 6 — Berman Stein Ottenheimer, Weidenfeld, Johnson Smith NAYS: 0 - None ABSENT: 0 - None PASSED: January 22, 2019. APPROVED: January 22, 2019. APPROVED: Beverly Suss n, Village President ATTEST: .Tanet ` Sirabiam, Village Clerk Q EXHIBIT A — Legal description 964 Cooper Court Buffalo Grove, IL SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 104 in the Crossings Subdivision, Unit 4, a subdivision in the 1/4 of the Southeast'/a of Section 30, Township 43 North, Range 11, east of the Third Principal Meridian, in the Village of Buffalo Grove, Lake County, Illinois. SUBJECT PROPERTY COMMON DESCRIPTION: 964 Cooper Court, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 PIN: 15-30-403-035 EXHIBIT B - Plan Set 964 Cooper Court Buffalo Grove, IL Gerald and Nita Goodman 964 Cooper Court Buffalo Grove, Illinois nitaeooman gmail.com November 14, 2018 To: Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Driveway located at 964 Cooper Ct In June of this year, 2018, we contracted Fortis Concrete to provide us with an estimate to replace our existing driveway. We also requested that they secure a permit with the village. Several months went by before we were notified by Fortis that the Village of Buffalo Grove only allowed driveways which did not exceed a 17ft. width, and therefore, would not grant a permit for our replacement. However, the original driveway at 964 Cooper measured 20ft. In width. it was completed In 1978 when we purchased our home. After 40 plus years of wear, our driveway and the concrete work surrounding our home, became an unsafe multi -level eyesore. To replace our driveway to be compliant with a 17ft. width would create many difficulties, one being to open car doors without causing damage to other vehicles on the driveway. Other concerns would be removing groceries from our full-sized vehicles, as well as installing and/or removing child car seats from vehicles. We are a large family with multiple grandchildren living nearby. Fortis suggested we use pavers on the side of the drive to widen the area allowing additional footage where people could stand. Pavers cannot be driven -on since they do not have the same firm foundation as newly laid concrete. This seemed like an agreeable solution since the driveway would now measure 17ft. in width. However, this again proved unacceptable to the village. It was now into August and I was beginningto feel that I either had to file for a variance and reconsider postponingthe entire project until the following spring. While in Philadelphia, on or about September 6, 20181 received a call from Fortis. They called to inform me that they had obtained a permit and concrete was scheduled to be poured on September 111h. They told me everything was approved, and I took them at their word. The old driveway, front and side walkways and patio were removed. Forms were set. The following day (or two) an inspector from the Village of Buffalo Grove reviewed and approved the project. It was never our intention to be out of compliance with the Village. Seeking a permit shows one's motivation to be compliant. My driveway has a natural pitch which allows appropriate drainage of my concrete, as well as the porous bricked area. We have only a slight 6% overage because of our pie -shaped lot. (Having a pie -shaped lot added to our dilemma because the 40% rule only considers only front footage.) I believe my contractor mislead me by not encouraging me to apply for a variance prior to the start of this job. At best, the driveway is only 17ft. in width and truly not as functional as our prior driveway. Turning onto it with another vehicle present is very tight. Street parking is limited. We currently own three vehicles. Numerous homes within our surrounding area have driveways which exceed 17ft. at their widest point; several of them have aprons which are beyond the standard. Three of those driveways are located on Cooper Court. It was not until after the final inspection that we were notified that Fortis had not followed their plan as filed. The removal of the brickwork would cause the narrowed driveway to be even less functional for our family. it would also cause additional monetary strain on the family budget since removal and regrading is costly. Thank you for your consideration - av- GEORGE 0. HARKEN i ASSOCIATES REGISTERED LAND SURVEYORS or Lot 104 In IM MSIi1G6. Brit 4, a wMiaiSian in the Southern 114 o/ the SwIlie"t 114 of Section 31. Twmhip 43 Maih. Aongr 11 East of the aer itrinciprl Urrrdrm. Lair w", nlraaL:_ u rcwvi l fq� 31�Lg t, µ' b APPROWD - MIY6 I-) AL ZONING REVIEWW/4 .BAAT-IE 1L)- EWUNEERIING REVIEW DATE Ew 7NE RICHAKDS d'LK-o�rP or tLU1J0� INC. Approved Permit � ! Drawing • 3 '� ti I QFtY�lU[ a.r'E �Au `��•,.vc n.ra�larLC ; e1L,?S�F.+.� 5�►+k�^ �-A; S7oa ex�zT�wy ,t'.S�w;do 4 fSrxlb' r!'Xsr state of tt nob GMYIW M 00* ; t,oEORc;EoMaRepbt6red UuWSurveyor.do �r�rwvayadR»popxryeattv !moan -w ntad ttra nunrr� ewsbucled are said heron. i 1 e% O tC 4i• 1.■i li .,____.. �,.Ir %"-1 N.- IF -Y. r— bo— w br4M1y Kw ►•w w IW --,&M n"04- rr■. C—.k Id wrWMM M rl— « "A. 0.6. 0.. I.I.■ .0— w Ili..■.+■r• a"ar-'a w ■N.K.hd III I"" ■.IIu■re■. ur. a. 7G0/42-/04 — .L-A L■w o-.MI.. _.. a..+, .I........a awa w 9-43-I L p„gc 2 wwumir. ,�,•u� . S3�7- ' d/ �'ulG9iv/.i'r . 5`/ -7197 0 GFOPM i. G. HARKER ti vj i519 G` s..■. N Iii■.i QMGE D. wulaA A ASSMIATES r..-bv -0, e.. r.....+....L. w r.dl.■. M ■ a■rr+..+ MIYI.: W t-wr-. r ./r Lw.r ■-/ I■N Mr Nr A■..• r +� a. ■ N � ww♦. ■■.r wljv, , a. G , r � • rrl a rwlrErL wssataCrw Response to Standards: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations of the zoning district in which it is located except in the case of residential zoning districts: The intent of this project was to remove 40-year-old concrete and enhance the existing property. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances: I requested my contractor, Fortis Concrete to secure a permit for the impending removal and replacement of my existing driveway at 964 Cooper Court. When over a month had passed and I had no notification from Fortis I made numerous calls to them with no response. I had another company bid my concrete work since I was concerned about the timeline since we were now at the end of July. In early August, Fortis did respond and inform me that the Village of Buffalo Grove would not approve a replacement of my existing driveway because it exceeded the 17' limit. Fortis suggested we use pavers on the side of the drive to widen the area allowing additional footage where people could stand. Pavers cannot be driven -on since they do not have the same firm foundation as newly laid concrete. They are porous, and the driveway is on a natural incline. This seemed like an agreeable solution since the driveway would now measure 17ft. in width. However, this again proved unacceptable to the Village. In August, I began to feel that I either had to file for a variance or consider postponing the entire project until the following spring. I discussed the situation with Rati Akash, but the wait time and gather of inform would put us seriously in the fall season. I decided to wait until the spring. I left town thinking this was a closed matter. While in Philadelphia, on or about September 6, 2018 1 received a call from Fortis. They called to inform me that they had obtained a permit and concrete was scheduled to be poured on September 111h. They told me everything was approved, and I took them at their word. The old driveway, front and side walkways and patio were removed. Forms were set. The following day (or two) an inspector representing the Village of Buffalo Grove came to our home saw the forms, reviewed and approved the project with a narrowing of the brick at the curb. Fortis never submitted revisions for this narrowing of the brick. I had no reason to doubt Fortis regarding the permit or the Village Inspector 3. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: The proposed variation is an enhancement to the neighborhood. It does not detract or change the essential character. Gerald and Nita Goodman 964 Cooper Court Buffalo Grove, Illinois The new driveway and brick installation at 964 Cooper Court is acceptable to me. 1448 CHASE COURT 1420 CHASE COURT 1462 CHASE COURT 1421 CHASE COURT 1435 CHASE COURT 1449 CHASE COURT 1490 CHASE COURT 964 COOPER COURT 972 COOPER COURT 956 COOPER COURT 980 COOPER COURT 957 COOPER COURT 948 COOPET COURT 988 COOPER COURT 949 COOPER COURT 987 COOPER COURT 996 COOPER COURT 941 COOPER COURT 1004 COOPER COURT 1005 COOPER COURT 997 COOPER COURT EXHIBIT C — Minutes from the December 19, 2018 Planning & Zoning Commission 964 Cooper Court Buffalo Grove, IL 12/19/2018 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 50 RAUPP BOULEVARD, BUFFALO GROVE, ILLINOIS ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2018 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:34 PM by Chairman Frank Cesario Public Hearin s Items For Consideration Consider Approval of a Variation for a Driveway to Exceed the Maximum Allowed Coverage for the Property at 964 Cooper Court (Trustee Ottenheimer) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) Nita Goodman, 964 Cooper Court, was present and sworn in. Ms. Goodman explained that in May, 2018, she began the process to remove and replace her driveway. The process was very slow. She had contracted with Fortis to complete the work. Fortis was unable to secure the permit to replace the driveway as it existed. The driveway had two (2) extensions and was twenty-two (22) foot wide. The driveway needed repairs but she still did not have the permit. She called the Village and was advised that she needed to apply for a variation. As fall approached she decided she did not want to put off replacing the driveway. in September, she went out of town and was advised by Fortis that they were approved and secured the permit. She never saw the permit. On September 11, 2018 Fortis removed the driveway and framed the new driveway, sidewalk and patio. An inspection was conducted by the Village, passed and the work was completed. When the inspector came out for the final inspection, the inspection did not pass. When she asked Fortis why the inspection failed, they could not give her a definitive answer. She knew the new driveway could not exceed the forty (40) percent coverage limitation. Ch. Cesario advised that page 3 of the packet shows the Plat of Survey. He believes that if the Petitioner had a more traditional -shaped lot the proposed driveway would probably have met the Code. Mr. Stilling confirmed that the Petitioner could have a larger driveway with a more traditional -shaped lot. Ch. Cesario noted that page 11 of the packet contains signatures from some of the surrounding property owners indicating they do not object. Ch. Ceasrio asked if staff had received any inquiries. Ms. Akash advised that staff received two (2) phone calls inquiring about the request, however they did not have any objections. Ch. Cesario appreciates that the Petitioner had spoken with her neighbors. Ms. Goodman advised that she was not able to speak with some of the neighbors. Ch. Cesario believes that the Petitioner tried to follow the rules but learned a lesson. Ms. Goodman added that the driveway itself is only seventeen (17) feet wide, which is restrictive. In addition, three (3) properties near hers also have similar driveways. Com. Khan asked the Petitioner if the previous driveway was installed at twenty-two (22) feet wide. Ms. Goodman responded that at some point two (2) brick paver side strips were added that increased the width to twenty-two (22) feet. The driveway itself is within Code, it's the front yard coverage limitation. To replace the driveway at seventeen (17) feet, she would not be able to open her car door and step out without stepping into the grass. it would also make it difficult for her to get the car seats in and out of her car. She does not drive on the brick paver extensions. Com. Khan stated that when an owner goes to remove and replace a driveway, they should bring the driveway into compliance with 12/19/2018 the Codes. Ms. Goodman understands and added that they own three (3) vehicles and there is very little street parking available. Com. Khan noted that the standard width of a parking stall is eight and one half (8-112) to nine (9) feet wide. Therefore a seventeen (17) foot wide driveway would be a standard size. There were no additional questions or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions or comments from the audience. Ch. Cesario entered the Staff Report dated December 19, 2018 as Exhibit 1. The public hearing was closed at 7.48 PM Moved by Com. Weinstein, seconded by Com. Moodhe, to make a positive recommendation to the Village Board to approve a variation to allow the new driveway and walkway to have a maximum of forty-six (46) percent front yard coverage. Com. Weinstein thanked the Petitioner for making the improvement to her property and not making the driveway more expansive than what already existed. The Petitioner attempted to follow the rules. He is in favor of the request. Com. Moodhe stated that other homes in the area are a similar pie -shape configuration. The driveway fits with the neighborhood. RESULT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Next: 1/22/2019 7:30 PM MOVER: Mitchell Weinstein, Commissioner SECONDER: Adam Moodhe, Commissioner AYES: Moodhe, Cesario, Goldspiel, Khan, Weinstein ABSENT: Matthew Cohn, Scott Lesser, Amy Au Ad'ournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 PM Chris Stilling APPROVED BY ME THIS 19th DAY OF December , 2018