Loading...
2018-12-19 - Planning and Zoning Commission - Agenda Packet Meeting of the Village of Buffalo Grove Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting December 19, 2018 at 7:30 PM Fifty Raupp Blvd Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-2100 Phone: 847-459-2500 I. Call to Order II. Public Hearings/Items For Consideration 1. 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) 2. Consider Approval of a Variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance to Allow for a Recreational Vehicle (Boat and Trailer) to Exceed the Maximum Width Requirement and to be Stored in the Side Yard Year Round Without the Required Screening for the Property at 981 Indian Spring Lane (Trustee Stein) (Staff Contact: Chris Stilling) III. Regular Meeting A. Other Matters for Discussion B. Approval of Minutes 1. Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting - Dec 5, 2018 7:30 PM C. Chairman's Report D. Committee and Liaison Reports E. Staff Report/Future Agenda Schedule F. Public Comments and Questions IV. Adjournment The Planning and Zoning Commission will make every effort to accommodate all items on the agenda by 10:30 p.m. The Board, does, however, reserve the right to defer consideration of matters to another meeting should the discussion run past 10:30 p.m. The Village of Buffalo Grove, in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in this meeting or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 459-2525 to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations for those persons. Updated: 12/14/2018 4:02 PM Page 1 Action Item : Consider Approval of a Variation for a Driveway to Exceed the Maximum Allowed Coverage for the Property at 964 Cooper Court Recommendation of Action Staff recommends approval. The petitioner, Nita Goodman recently improved their existing driveway after receiving a driveway permit from the Village of Buffalo Grove. The approved permit plans met the forty (40) percent front yard coverage. Upon staff's inspection, it was determined that the contractor added an additional brick walkway adjacent to the new driveway which was not shown on the approved permit drawings. Following staff's review, it was determined that the addition of the walkway resulted in the property exceeding the maximum front yard coverage. As a result, a variation is require d. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report (DOCX)  Plan Set (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Ottenheimer Chris Stilling, Community Development Wednesday, December 19, 2018 2.1 Packet Pg. 2 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 19, 2018 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 964 Cooper Ct PETITIONER: Nita Goodman PREPARED BY: Rati Akash, Planner REQUEST: A variation to allow for an existing driveway to exceed the forty (40) percent of front yard coverage maximum. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single family home currently zoned R9A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The approved Village Comprehensive Plan calls for this property and the immediate neighborhood to be single family detached. PROJECT BACKGROUND The petitioner, Nita Goodman recently improved their existing driveway after receiving a driveway permit from the Village of Buffalo Grove. The approved permit plans met the 40% front yard coverage as depicted in the plat of survey. After an inspection was conducted, it was found the driveway was expanded beyond what was shown on the approved permit. The additional area resulted in a front yard coverage greater than allowable 40%. As a result, a variation is required. PLANNING & ZONING ANALYSIS History of Events 1. In July 2018, the petitioner’s contractor (Fortis) applied for a driveway permit and front walk (replacement). The permit application was denied as the driveway plans exceeded the 40% coverage and was given the choice to go through a variation. The petitioner did inquire with staff regarding the variation process; however an application was not filed. It should be noted that it appears that the previous driveway did not meet code as it exceeded the 40% coverage requirement. 2. In August 2018, Fortis amended their original permit application reducing the size of the driveway (17 feet wide) to meet the 40% coverage. As a result, the Village approved and issued the permit. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 3 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) 3. In September 2018, staff conducted a pre-pour inspection for the concrete driveway. At that time, staff approved the inspection as it substantially conformed to the approved permit drawing. Although they added the flared end, some of that area falls within the ROW since the property line is about 2’ from the back of curb. Therefore, staff determined that the driveway was still in conformance with Code. 4. In November 2018, staff conducted a final inspection of the driveway and noticed that brick pavers had been added along the side of the driveway, increasing the coverage beyond the maximum allowed 40%. The final inspection was denied and the applicant was directed to either remove the added pavers or apply for a variation. Summary of the Changes  The driveway was expanded to include a brick paved walkway abutting the west portion of the improved driveway. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance based on the maximum permitted 40% front yard coverage, the property is allowed up to approximately 410 square feet of impervious coverage for their driveway and walkways.  The following is a breakdown of the front yard impervious coverage: New driveway (concrete and brick): 450square feet Brick walkway in front of the house 12 square feet Concrete walkway east side of the house 10 square feet Total impervious square footage: 472 square feet Total impervious percent coverage 46% Recently Approved Driveway Variations Address Percent Coverage (40% Max) Ordinance 4 Fabish Drive 54% Coverage Approved 2015-48 2229 Avalon Court 50% Coverage Approved 2014-45 1220 Lockwood Drive 45% Coverage Approved 2010-15 DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS Village Department Comments Engineering The Village Engineer has reviewed the proposed driveway expansion and has no comments or concerns regarding the proposed expansion. SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Village Code, the contiguous property owners were notified and a public hearing sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were 2.1.a Packet Pg. 4 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this Staff Report, two calls were received, however no concerns were raised. STANDARDS The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance based upon findings of fact which are made based upon evidence presented at the hearing that: 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 (Not Applicable); 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; 3. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The petitioner has provided a response to the standards for the variation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a variation to allow the new driveway and walkway to have a maximum of 46% front yard coverage. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall reopen the public hearing and take public testimony concerning the request. The PZC shall make a recommendation to the Village Board. 2.1.a Packet Pg. 5 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) 2.1.b Packet Pg. 6 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) 2.1.b Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) 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 o f 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 I 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 11th. 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. 2.1.b Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) Expanded Areas Approved Driveway 2.1.b Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 2.1.b Packet Pg. 10 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r 2.1.b Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : P l a n S e t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a D r i v e w a y f o r t h e P r o p e r t y a t 9 6 4 C o o p e r C o u r t ) Updated: 12/13/2018 6:46 PM Page 1 Action Item : Consider Approval of a Variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance to Allow for a Recreational Vehicle (Boat and Trailer) to Exceed the Maximum Width Requirement and to be Stored in the Side Yard Year Round Without the Required Screening for the Property at 981 Indian Spring Lane Recommendation of Action Staff recommends action at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning Commission. The petitioner reached out to the Village to file for a petition to allow for a variation to store their boat and trailer in their side yard year round. The trailer exceeds the maximum width requirement of 8'-0" (8'-4" Requested), and encroaches 3'-6" into the front yard setback. Additionally, the trailer lacks adequate screening as outlined in the RV regulations. Additional information can be found in the attached staff report. ATTACHMENTS:  Staff Report (DOCX)  Attachments (PDF) Trustee Liaison Staff Contact Stein Chris Stilling, Community Development Wednesday, December 19, 2018 2.2 Packet Pg. 12 VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: December 19, 2018 SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATION: 981 Indian Spring Lane PETITIONER: Alex Ganzman PREPARED BY: Christopher Stilling, Director of Community Development REQUEST: A variation to Section 17.36.030 of the Village of Buffalo Grove Zoning Ordinance to allow for a recreational vehicle (boat and trailer) to exceed the maximum width requirement and to be stored in the side yard year round. EXSITING LAND USE AND ZONING: The property is improved with a single-family home and is zoned R4A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The 2009 Comprehensive Plan calls for this property to be single family detached housing. BACKGROUND The new RV Ordinance took effect on August 1, 2018 which regulates single-family properties to store one (1) RV on a driveway from May 15th to September 30th. At all other times of the year, the outside storage of a RV is allowed in the rear and/or side yard of a lot and it must meet the zoning setbacks. The RV shall also be screened from public view (landscaping or fencing) and parked on a hard surface (asphalt, pavers, etc.). The petitioner reached out to the Village to file for a petition to allow for a variation to store their boat and trailer in their side yard year round. The trailer exceeds the maximum width requirement of 8’-0” (8’-4” requested), and encroaches 3’-6” into the front yard setback. PLANNING AND ZONING ANALYSIS History  The petitioner has indicated that they have lived in Buffalo Grove for 16 years with this particular boat and trailer. They note that they have been in this current house for approximately 5 years.  In 2017, the petitioner did apply for and receive a building permit for an expansion of the driveway to accommodate the boat.  To date, the Village has not received any complaints concerning the trailer. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) Size and Usage  The petitioner stores the boat and trailer in the side yard on asphalt.  The boat and trailer measures approximately 8’-4” in width, 27’-8” in length including the hitch, and 7’- 6” in height based on staff’s measurements. The boat and trailer is a few inches over the maximum width of 8’-0” as outlined in the RV regulations.  The previous RV Ordinance had the same maximum permissible width requirement of 8’-0”. The boat and trailer exceeded the width restriction 8’-0” even before the new RV Ordinance took effect this August, 2018. Location and Storage  The Petitioner is requesting a variation to store the boat and trailer in the side yard year-round on a paved surface. The boat and trailer is parked approximately 2’-6” from the north property line as per staff’s measurements which is less than the required side yard setback of 6’-0”. This can vary by a few inches depending on how the Petitioner parks the boat and trailer.  The boat and trailer is setback approximately 40’ from the front lot line, which meets Village Code.  The petitioner has indicated that they are unable to store the boat in the rear yard as there is a grade change. Furthermore, the petitioner indicated that they cannot fit the boat and trailer in the garage.  The trailer is not screened with a fence or landscape buffer from the street view, however there is existing landscaping on neighbor’s property to the north. Should the PZC approve the request, staff recommends that they add a fence along the front and side of the storage area to better screen the boat and trailer. Variations requested 1. As outlined in the RV regulations, the trailer can only be stored within the building setbacks for each specific zoning district. In this case, the trailer is required to be setback 6’ from side yard setback line. As indicated, the trailer encroaches approximately 3’-5” into the side yard setback. 2. RV regulations require the width of the RV to be within the maximum permitted width of 8’-0”. In this case, the trailer exceeds the width limitation by approximately 4”. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) 3. RV regulations require the trailer to be adequately screened; the location where the trailer is parked lacks any kind of screening in form of a fence or landscaping on their property. SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS Pursuant to Village Code, the surrounding property owners within 250’ were notified and a public hearing sign was posted on the subject property. The posting of the public hearing sign and the mailed notifications were completed within the prescribed timeframe as required. As of the date of this staff report, the Village received a few inquiries, however no concerns were raised. STANDARDS The Planning & Zoning Commission is authorized to grant variations to the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance based upon findings of fact which are made based upon evidence presented at the hearing that: 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 (not applicable in this case); 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; 3. The proposed variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The petitioner has provided a written response to the standards for a variation which are included in this packet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends action at the discretion of the Planning & Zoning Commission. Should the PZC approve the request, staff recommends that they add a fence along the front and side of the storage area to better screen the boat and trailer. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) shall open the public hearing and take public testimony concerning the variation. The PZC shall make a final decision on whether or not to approve or deny the variation. Should the variation be denied by the PZC, the petitioner may appeal the decision to the Village Board. 2.2.a Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : S t a f f R e p o r t ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t s ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t s ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t s ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N ) 2.2.b Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t s ( C o n s i d e r A p p r o v a l o f a V a r i a t i o n f o r a R e c r e a t i o n a l V e h i c l e ( B o a t & T r a i l e r ) a t 9 8 1 I n d i a n S p r i n g L N )