Loading...
O-46-00 07/24/2000ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION TO THE LEMONT ZONING ORDINANCE (14835 Ashford Drive, Lemont, Illinois) ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT This /'+'4' day of aL44,_2000. Published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties, Illinois this � I- day of 2000. ORDINANCE NO. ` ��- 2) AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS TO THE LEMONT ZONING ORDINANCE (14835 Ashford Drive, Illinois) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by in connection with a Request for a Variation for the property legally described in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking relief to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance , pursuant to Section VII.F., to allow the construction of a deck; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Lemont, Illinois, in accordance with said Zoning Ordinance, conducted a Public Hearing on the petition on June 6, 2000; and WHEREAS, a notice of the aforesaid Public Hearing was made in the manner provided by law and was published in the Lemont Metropolitan, a newspaper of general circulation within the Village; and WHEREAS, the Lemont Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the variation to the Village Board; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have determined that the best interest of the Village will be served by the approval of this petition granting variation for the subject property. NOW, '1HI REFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, DuPAGE, AND WILL, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Variation Allow the reduction of a rearyard setback by 12 feet, pursuant to Section VII.F. SECTION 2: Condition of Approval The Petitioner's shall comply with the Building Code inspections items attached as Exhibit `B ". PASSED AND APPROVED BY 111EE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, on this .2'444' of e .2.y, 2000. 0 John Benik Debra Blatzer Keith Latz Connie Markiewicz Rick Rimbo Mary Studebaker Attest: AYES NAYS PASSED ABSENT v Approved by me this ,2`1' day of CHARLENE SM I LLEN, Village Clerk CHARLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk 2000. ,-APPROVED AS TO FORM � V GC 4? J t : TONOPOULO illage Attorney repared by: Planning Department Village of Lemont 418 Main Street Lemont, 11 60439 ge President EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description: 9992 36368 PARCEL TWO: NO. 14835 ASHFORD DRIVE) A TRACT OF LAND BEING A PART OF LOT 42 IN KEEPATAW TRAILS, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, SAID TRACT BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 42; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42, A DISTANCE OF 58.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42, A DISTANCE OF 32.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTE 08 SECONDS WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 42, A DISTANCE OF 111.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 42; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG AN ARC OF A CIRCLE, BEING CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1400.00 FEET, A CHORD OF 32.04 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 86 DEGREES 40 MINUTES, 48 SECONDS WEST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.05 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTE, 08 SECONDS EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 42, A DISTANCE OF 113.09 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 257 -1580 EXHIBIT "B" VILLAGE OF LEMONT 418 Main Street, Lemont, Illinois 60439 ADDRESS: 14az INSPECTION TYPE: tG INSPECTION DATE: Z -c=11:=• 0 APPROVED KNOT APPROVED INSP. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS NEED TO BE CORRECTED. REINSPECTION REQUIRED. 0 t■\ NdtLD re) t r 1 Ci)-Pec:5•Act."-= i% '_aP tip Cc. 3r Ett%ka cgs 1)(2 11 t a-AQ \ . g21:7) G d T 1:)ciT' CM 1 Ni ■ M �2s��r -E c►� Acc...r.TrArLa- ce• �d�� tc�T i ,t1-eA t tiST-- c*-J C.A-Xna, 2.xe 2x 9 -44' 1 Forth 117 FR ev Village of Faith Mayor Richard A. Kwasneski Village Clerk Charlene M. Smollen Trustees John Benik Debby Blatzer Keith Latz Connie Markiewicz Rick Rimbo Mary Studebaker Administrator Steven A. Jones Community Development Scott Buening Fax 630/243 -0958 Email: vlemont @aol.com www.lemont.il.us Village ©f Lemont COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 418 Main Street • Lemont, IL 60439 (630) 257-1595 Mayor Richard A. Kwasneski and Board of Trustees Village of Lemont 418 Main Street Lemont, IL 60439 RE: Case Number 20.04, Irwin and Wendy Dungo - Variation Request Dear Mayor Kwasneski and Village Trustees: The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above noted case at the June 6, 2000 meeting. The petitioner's are requesting: a Variation to allow an encroachment of 12 feet into a minimum required rear yard of 30 feet for an existing deck The Commission heard testimony from the Village Planner and the petitioner. Following careful review of the petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the variations by a vote of 7 -0 with one (1) condition. Sincerely, Tom Metzger, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission PUBLIC HEARING A. A motion was made by Mr. Studebaker and seconded by Ms. Murphy to open the Public Hearing case number 20.04 Request for Rear Yard Setback Variation at 14835 Ashford Drive. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. Mr. Fitz said that the petitioners built a deck without a permit and are requesting a variance to allow the deck to encroach into the rear yard setback. The area that the petitioners have to build a deck in does not allow for the construction of one without a variance. Mr. Fitz said that a majority of the Keepataw Trails Townhome units have decks or have the capability to have a deck. Mr. Fitz said that there are eight units without decks that have a walkout, of which four units could build a deck and meet setbacks and four units could not. Mr. Fitz said that the Zoning Ordinance changed during the Dungo's petition, where originally a setback was measured 60 feet between structures and now is measured 30 feet from the rear lot line. Ms. Murphy said that the notice of Public Hearing was not very visible from the street. Mr. Fitz said that the sign meets current code. Mr. Murphy suggested to change the ordinance. Ms. Murphy asked if the three other units that cannot build a deck without a variance have approached the Village. Mr. Fitz said not to his knowledge. Petitioners Wendy and Irwin Dungo said that their builder told them during construction that they would have to have a deck due to the raised elevation of their unit. Ms. Dungo said that they closed on their townhome in February of 1999 and because their builder was not very cooperative, they did not find out until six moths later that a variance was needed. Ms. Dungo said that the money they put up with their builder to install the deck was returned in the fall of 1999 and they hired their own contractor to build the deck, which was finished in November of 1999. Ms. Dungo said that they are concerned with the property value of their unit and the negative aspect of having only stairs leading to a small backyard instead of a deck like most other units. Mr. Dungo said that a smaller deck would not work due to the location of the existing air conditioning unit. Ms. Dungo said that their deck contractor told them he knew someone at the Village and would have no problem getting the variance. Ms. Dungo said that they were led to believe the contractor got the variance and a permit, but now he is saying it was their responsibility. Ms. Murphy asked if the Dungo's knew in August a variance was needed. Ms. Dungo said yes, they were told by their builder, but they did not know about the lengthy process and fees involved in getting a variance. Chairman Metzger asked if they've talked to someone about building a smaller deck. Ms. Dungo said no, but if they are not allowed to keep the existing deck, they could only build stairs straight out due to the location of the air conditioning unit. Mr. Studebaker asked if the deck construction has been approved. Mr. Fitz said that a building review has not been conducted due to the zoning issue, but an inspection can be scheduled with the Building Department. Joan Wilke, of 12782 Chieftain Court, said that the existing deck is much more attractive than stairs would be. Mr. Wilke, of 12782 Chieftain Court, said that he doesn't know how the Village inspects porches or what they're looking for, but a neighbor has a porch the whole length of his unit. Chairman Metzger said he will ask staff to look into it. Vlado Stavreff, of 14833 Ashford Drive, said that they have a temporary occupancy permit and have had a boarded rear access for more than a year, and their builder still has more that $1000 of their money for the construction of a deck. Mr. Fitz said that assuming a standard deck is 10 feet by 10 feet, of the four units that would need a variance, two units could only build stairs and two units could build a four or five foot deck. Chairman Metzger said that he would like a structural analysis of the deck, an answer to the status of temporary occupancy permits and to discuss other options. Mr. Stapleton suggested to review this petition as a group variance. Ms. Murphy said that she is worried about setting a precedent for the other three units and can't imagine a stairway will be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Murphy recommended granting a bulk variance. Mr. Studebaker said that he thinks the builder knew the units needed variances and is culpable. Ms. Murphy asked if the builder can be held responsible for the variance fees incurred by the petitioner. Chairman Metzger said that a 12 foot by 12 foot deck may not be the standard and suggested to consider alternative sizes for the remaining three units. Mr. Fitz said that he can find out the average size of the existing decks in the townhomes. Mr. Stapleton said that he would like to see the builder responsible for all 3 variance fees, if possible. Mr. Fitz said that if it is the direction of the Commission for the other three townhome owners to be contacted, he suggested to continue the Public Hearing to the May 2, 2000 meeting. Mr. Dungo said that the standard deck size for the subdivision was 8 feet by 12 feet, but most are larger. Mr. Dungo said that their townhome was built after the townhome across from them built a deck, which automatically decreased their buildable area before their unit was even constructed. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Mr. Ptacek to continue the Public Hearing case number 20.04 Request for Rear Yard Setback Variation at 14835 Ashford Drive to the May 2, 2000 meeting. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. B. A motion was made by and seconded by to open the Public Hearing case number 20.05 Request for Special Use to permit massage therapy in the B -3 District at 15419 127th Street. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. Mr. Fitz said that the Commission may want to re- examine the Zoning Ordinance and massage therapy as a Special Use and separate it by definition from a massage parlor, which could be placed in the M -4 District. Petitioner Susan Urnikis said that she will graduate from the Massage Academy in Villa Park on April 29, 2000. Ms. Urnikis said that her business will be an asset to the Village and has the benefit of being located in a medical complex. Ms. Urnikis said that she anticipates her hours to be 9 -5 during the week and 9 -1 on Saturday, by appointment only. Ms. Urnikis said that she currently works out of her house and has her own client base, and also gets physical referrals and is referred by word of mouth. Ms. Urnikis said that there will be one therapy room and no other employees. Mr. Studebaker asked about parking. Ms. Urnikis said that the parking lot is large and there will be no parking problems. Chairman Metzger asked about signage. Ms. Urnikis said that she would prefer to have a sign on the door, or will comply with whatever is allowed. Daniel Homemeier, of Bristol, Wisconsin, said that he attends the Academy with Ms. Urnikis and is a sitting judge. Mr. Homemeier said that Illinois Legislature is considering legislation which would require that massage therapists have 500 hours of certification, and should be passed by the end of this year. Chairman Metzger said that he agrees with Mr. Fitz that massage therapy should 4 J ' ii ' I1 PUD R-4 ;;] LL 1,L PUD 0 PUD R -4 R -4 !-_ lin 1_ I1 R -4 z X w 1 c 0 0 `0 o 3 0 OANWoOD 6LEYANTARY SCHOOL -3 1TH EC SE PU R- subject property PUD R -4 CORPO T 133rd . STREEl STAFF REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMNIISSION Prepared by Andrew Fitz, Village Planner GENERAL CASEFILE INFORMATION Case Number 20.04 Commission Meeting Date March 21, 2000 Petitioner Erwin and Wendy Dunso Request(s) A Variation to permit an existing deck to encroach 11 -feet into a required 30 -foot rearyard setback Location 14835 Ashford Drive Parcel Number(s) 22- 33- 114 -019, 010 Size Approx. 16,600 square feet Street Frontage(s) 145 -feet along Ashford Drive Current Zoning R -4iPUD Contiguous Zoning & North, R-5/PUD, Covington Knolls Townhomes Land Use South, R -3, Single Family Residential East, R -1, Vacant West, R -4, Single Family Residential Exhibits 1) Location/Zoning Map. 2) Plat of Survey. 3) Existing Deck map 4) Land Use Application CHARACTER OF THE AREA The subject property is located within Keepataw Trails, a residential planned unit development that was approved in January of 1996. The development contains a mix of townhomes and single family residences. The Dungo's currently own Townhome Unit B on Lot 42 at 14835 Ashford Drive. HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY The current variation request has a somewhat complex history. It first came to the attention of the Community Development Department when Joe Ostapachuk, a building inspector, was out on an unrelated site inspection at Keepataw Trails and noted that a deck at 14835 Ashford Drive had been erected without a permit. He notified the Dungo's of this fact, at which time they applied for a permit. After reviewing the permit for Zoning Compliance it was noted that the deck encroached approximately 11 feet into the 30 -foot rearyard setback. Although it is not necessarily germane to the issue of granting the variation, it should be noted that both the Dungo's and their unlicensed contractor assert that the other party stated that they would be responsible for obtaining the deck permit. After the Building department notified the Dungo's that the deck would need to be removed or a variation applied for, a meeting was arranged with Community Development Department. As the Dungo's had already paid the contractor for the deck, they did not desire to remove it and felt that a variation request was in their best interest. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The petitioner's are requesting an after - the -fact variation request to allow an existing deck to encroach approximately 11 feet into a required minimum 30 -foot rearyard setback. The dimensions of the deck are 12 -feet by 12 -feet, and it also serves as a means of access to the rearyard from the second floor of the unit. After researching the existing permit files for information on deck permits that have been issued to date in Keepataw Trails, Staff has compiled a map depicting this information (attached as exhibit 3). Discounting the seven (7) units without a second story walk -out, approximately 88% of the townhome units currently have decks. After further investigation of the individual plats of survey for the remaining 8 townhome units that do not have decks, it was determined that 4 of those units could accommodate a standard deck (101x10') and the other 4 units did not have a large enough rearyard to do so. Therefore, assuming that the remaining eligible 4 units construct a deck in the future, there would then be a total of 92% of the second story walk -out units that would have a deck and 8%, or 4 units, that would not be allowed to construct a deck by code. The point being, that a vast majority of the townhome occupants currently do or can enjoy the added benefit of a deck, while a very small minority cannot. PUBLIC RESPONSE Staff has not received any inquiries regarding the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Staff's Recommendation may be based on the following elements and considerations: the Comprehensive plan, Illinois Zoning and Planning Statutes, Case Law, the Zoning Ordinance, other applicable village ordinances, input from various village departments and personnel. and professional expertise and knowledge of urban planning practices and principles. It has not incorporated public and/or expert testimony or new and better information presented during public hearings/proceedings on the petition. The Staff's Recommendation is subject to change and modification and should not be construed to be final and irrevocable. After meeting with the Dungo's, and reviewing the history of the petition, it is Staffs belief that the Dungo's did not intentionally flaunt Village codes and knowingly erect a deck without the necessary permit. However, as the owners of the subject property they are ultimately responsible for complying with land use codes and other ordinances regulating the use of private property. At any rate, it does not serve any real purpose at this point to attempt to assign blame to one party or another. The issues that are important to pay particular consideration to are: 1) Does a hardship exist in this case, or is the hardship self - imposed? 2) Will granting the variation set a precedent for future after- the -fact variation requests? 3) By allowing the deck to remain, is the quality of life within the development impacted in any significant fashion? A hardship may in fact exist, if only in relation to the larger bundle of rights and privileges that a majority of the subdivision enjoys. • There is always the danger of setting a precedent in granting a variation, which underscores the importance of basing the approval on objective, rather than subjective, reasoning and principles. • It is highly doubtful that in a development where a vast majority of the units have rearyard decks, that the addition of another deck will have any measurable or perceptible impact. The Commission may ultimately pursue one (1) of three (3) possible options: 1) Recommend denial of the variation. The deck will then be pursued as a zoning, violation and required to be removed. 2) Approve of a smaller variation, in which case the deck will need to altered or removed and rebuilt. 2) Recommend approval of the variation, in which case the deck remains.