Loading...
O-33-00 06/12/2000ORDINANCE NO. 3 -00 AN ORDLNANCE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE LEMONT ZONING ORDLNANCE (1 Bennington Court, Lemont, Illinois) ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF 'TRUSTEES OF lHE VILLAGE OF LEMONT This / 441 day of v �u �1.� 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 t z 141 day of JLm _ 2000. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO 1'HE LEMONT ZONING ORDINANCE (1 Bennington Court, Lemont, Illinois) WHEREAS, an application has been filed by Donald Spadoni in connection with a Request for Variation for the property legally described in Exhibit "A" and located at 1 Bennington Court, Lemont, Illinois; and WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking relief to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance, to allow a rearyard setback to be 13 feet instead of the required 30 feet, pursuant to Section VII.E.7. a.3. of the Lemont Zoning Ordinance; 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 May 16, 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 a variation to the Village Board to allow a 10 -foot rearyard setback; 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,1'HLREFORE, BE IT ORDALNED BY 1H1; PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF '1'H14: VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, DuPAGE, AND WILL, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Variance Allow a proposed deck to encroach 10 -feet into a required minimum 30 -foot rearyard. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, on this /A of J„ • 2000. John Benik Debby Blatzer Keith Latz Connie Markiewicz Rick Rimbo Mary Studebaker Attest: Approved by me this AYES NAYS PASSED ABSENT NE SM • L ' , illage Clerk day of 2000. ASNESKI, Village Presjdent RLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk PRO AS TO FO i J O OP UL OS Village Attorney Prepared by: Planning Department Village of Lemont 418 Main Street Lemont, 11 60439 bd WdtS:Ot 0002 SO 'unr 8S60 s'bz 029 : 'CN 3NCHd . WO�� EXHIBIT A LOT 16 IN COVINGTON KNOLLS, UNIT 1, A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 29, 1995 AS DOCUMENT #95- 419213 IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. 22 -28- 306 -016 `.)lnor NA r v x.41 tap )" ?YaA) CA T 99- /07 ♦o w. sc. w ��r ✓ r: VAMP C s KNEW S OLTa mown' AT 14 ttRtNQT mt0 a O NNOW ONt11 - MANX= las TOOL o r4 pluselariu FOUNDATION SURVEY LOT 16 IN COVINGTON KNOLLS, UNIT 1. A SU601VISION OF PART Cr 1 4E SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 26. TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH. RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEROF RECORDED JUNE 29. 1995 AS DOCUMENT /95-419213 IN COCK COUNTY. ILLINOIS :T MA1 t) :► ' I•t ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 0 VACANT P.T.F. 744.70 N 83'53'52" 3' ORAINAGE & U ry EASEMENT 0 AI'C71 I L. 31.' ".C1 .vI NS F AL I_., . THIN THE h:Ut1.L1VV E'.- 01��fiASieET IC l:P1'1IF`; :S' R.I:,t_r'yzLe A' a°ED�GU�ttLLVitC L�r-t q` Nry., •e: UC _. .4 C "1 Fit THE (I' .. ) I-r A TrL Y i0:1) PA�•ii_ -n vs DIST .LLB,_., t n_� L/ 127,81' �tS r CI'n f t L ,� Nf_ta'w�T J,9 s o`" "Gi ▪ fs\fy� I ee, • F A'q„. T SCALE 1 "2O" o • DRAINAGE & U711,ITY EASE H • 1j, L -45.00 R= 60.00' SFl 11i r 'LL f l ' LA /11' rt VACANT P.T.F. 747.50 ENGINEERING RESOURCE ASSOCIATES, INC. COrJI.7910 OWte9S • QANVIYORS 214I w217 WILLOW AV[MA VAWATOM. ALMS 10117 /10111 •101 tttilt PAX 19301 KWON SITE GRADING PUN 3 -t0-99 STAKE -OUT 3/22/99 FOUND. SURVEY 4/29/99 FINAL SURVEY C: \SURVEY \COV \COVI6.DWG f1R L T IL__ c L.11 t.11!�':1L STATE OF ILLINOIS S.S. COUNTY OF OuPAGE I, WARREN 0. JOHNSON, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE SURVEYED THE ABOVE PROPERTY AND THAT THE PLAT HEREON DRAWN IS A CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY. DATED A WHEAT"' "• THIS 29111 DAY EXHIBIT 2 1 Bennington Court 20.12 44...www, -15:27:10 2000 •415:41 as: f:\dn\decks\3160D943.DEK' .ensions for Deck 1 rn m 1..14 en' Deck 1 1' • 18' 11" ' 4' • • • • oi? 12' 11" 3' 12' 11" 3' --i 18' 11." m = 16 in. o.c. Spacing = 96 in. 0.c., Baluster Spdying = 3 in., To 5pacing = 3 in., Railing Height = EXHIBIT 3 1 Bennington Court 20.12 Rearyard between subject property and adjacent home Drop-off doors on North Wall of 1 Bennington Court EXHIBIT 4 1 Bennington Court 20.12 House to north of property which deck would be facing Village of Faith Chairman Thomas J. Metzger Commissioners Paul Bruce Katherine H. Murphy Ellen Pearson Jerry Ptacek Ronald J. Stapleton Scott Studebaker Villa e of Lemont PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION 418 Main Street • Lemont, IL 60439 Mayor Richard A. Kwasneski and Board of Trustees Village of Lemont 418 Main Street Lemont, IL 60439 RE: Case Number 20.12: Deck Variation at 1 Bennington Court Dear Mayor Kwasneski and Village Trustees: The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above noted case at the May 16, 2000 meeting. The petitioner and owner of the single family residence, Donald Spadoni, is requesting a Variation to allow a deck to encroach 13 -feet into a required 30 -foot rearyard setback. The Commission heard testimony from the Village Planner, the petitioner and members of the audience. The petitioner raised numerous issues ranging from the manner in which the matter was misrepresented to him by Gallagher & Henry to the concern for the a safe means of egress for his young daughter. Several audience members spoke in support of the request. The Commissioner's generally felt that the requested variation for the property was supportable in light of the constraints inherent in the configuration of the corner lot. However, the Commissioner's felt that a 13 -foot variation was excessive and that a smaller variation of 10 -feet would satisfy the overall needs of the petitioner while avoiding a precedent setting decision. Following careful review of the petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission's vote to recommend approval of a 10 -foot Variation passed by a vote of 6 -0. Sincerely, Tom Metzger, Chairperson Planning and Zoning Commission responsibility of the parcel. Mr. Glyman said that they will work with the Village regarding the kind of amenities the Village wants at the site and will make sure there is maintenance access to the site. Chairman Metzger asked the opinion of the Commissioners regarding the connection to the north. The Commissioners want the connection. Mr. Ptacek asked about phasing. Mr. Possidoni said that they will mass grade the site and will most likely do the townhomes in one phase and the single family in two phases. Mr. Possidoni estimates build out in 24 to 30 months with a maximum of 36 months. Mr. Possidoni said that they plan to market the commercial property later than sooner. Overall, the Commissioners liked the revised plan. PUBLIC HEARING B. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Mr. Ptacek to open the Public Hearing case number 20.12 Request for a Variance to allow a rear yard setback to be 13 feet instead of the required 30 feet at 1 Bennington Court. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. Mr. Fitz said that the property is located on a corner lot in a cul -de -sac. The homeowner purchased the lot with the impression that a deck could be built and is now asking to encroach 13 feet into the 30 foot rear yard setback. Mr. Fitz said perhaps the Village needs to take another look at the zoning requirements for decks to determine if the standards are too restrictive. Mr. Fitz said that deck restrictions have been brought up before to developers, but the Village's forewarnings are often ignored or the burden is placed on the homeowner. Ms. Murphy does not think Village standards are bad, but that something else is not working. Ms. Murphy said that the burden should be put on the developer if there is a four -foot drop off from the rear door that leads to nowhere. Mr. Fitz said that due to the corner lot situation, staff feels some sort relief is warranted. Petitioner Don Spodoni said that he sat at the Gallagher & Henry sales office and said that he liked this house and this lot and was not informed that a variance would be needed to build a deck. Mr. Spadoni said that he does not feel there is a problem with Village Ordinances, but that builders should be aware of Village Codes. Mr. Spadoni said that he was told the deck could wrap around the side to the rear, but can't because the air conditioning unit is in the way and there is no electricity available behind his garage. Mr. Spadoni said that because of the three car garage, the home faces Bennington Court and not Overton Drive, and if the home faced Overton Drive, he would not need a variance. Mr. Spadoni said that he cannot put in grass or install the sprinkler system because the location of the deck has not been determined. Mr. Spadoni said that his neighbor to the north is in attendance this evening and has no objection to the deck encroachment. Mr. Spadoni said that his biggest concerns are for the safety of his daughter, with a back door that leads nowhere, and the lack of awareness on behalf of Gallagher & Henry. Chairman Metzger asked why the petitioner is requesting 13 feet of variance. Mr. Spadoni said that with the size of both sides of their families, they filled the 12 foot deck at their old house and would like to be comfortable. Ms. Murphy is concerned with the size of the deck, but is not disputing that a deck is needed. Chairman Metzger agreed that the size of the deck is too large. Mr. Spadoni said that he can't make the deck longer because it will cover the electric meter and telephone box to the west and will cover basement windows to the east. Mr. Spadoni suggested a 10 foot encroachment. Gretchen Radamsky, of 1365 Overton Drive, said that the deck and the request are perfectly agreeable and does not hinder her at all. Dave Marsielle, of 1370 Overton Drive, said that the builder could have controlled the grade of the home and Gallagher & Henry has three grades to choose from. Jeanette Debauras, of 13490 Derby Road, said that the encroachment should be allowed if the neighbors don't have a problem with it and it is not a detriment. A motion was made by Mr. Studebaker and seconded by Ms. Pearson to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried 6 -0 by voice vote. Chairman Metzger said to reduce the variance request from a 13 foot encroachment to a 10 foot encroachment. A motion was made by Ms. Pearson and seconded by Mr. Studebaker to approve case number 20.12 Request for a Variance to allow a rear yard setback to be 13 feet instead of the required 30 feet at 1 Bennington Court, as amended to allow a 10 foot encroachment. Motion approved 6 -0 by roll call vote. 4 1 NI. • »a !t!!' fl 12.21 . POI 1. WS 1201. •. "- COr/N.TON ItIVINIS SIa UMW O r 1•..1 p•..!!4• tlb .1 S... H- I ►A .■•• J... 84,I,16 A. JS4 fS OI111A611[11 S N.NI1T'f C•V114ST. ANON$ TMNNNACS, 'NIT 1, . M N ►..4 l.. 112 :. C ..: 24.. 11..1 $.h. 11.:1 O. <w1 •w'1. 1 ft •1 4 St. 4%.1141 'N.1 S•.. 10.11.14 A... 44.T 44. 11144 0... 411114111.. ■oyr y� ee V \ t \4 N... C.W- «11 i•N6 *la* 1.414. • ••111;; {•..1111. .- " 1 ,.,.. 44:44.. . 1144 .1 ..... os.. /C. -os7 t - ••I 74 77 015 -016 OUTIOT C -OII OUTIOT A 127th EXHIBIT 1 1 Bennington Court 20.12 STAFF REPORT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Prepared by Andrew Fitz, Village Planner GENERAL CASEFILE INFORMATION Case Number Commission Meeting Date Petitioner Request(s) Location Parcel Number(s) Size Street Frontage(s) Current Zoning Contiguous Zoning & Land Use Exhibits 1) Location Zoning Map 2) Foundation Survey 3) Deck Detail 4) Site Photographs 20.12 May 16, 2000 Donald Spadoni Variation request to allow a proposed deck to encroach 13 -feet into a required minimum 30 -foot rearyard 1 Bennington Court 22- 28- 306 -016 Approx. 12,000 square feet 82 feet on Overton Drive 115 feet on Bennington Court R -4/PUD North, R-4 Single Family Residential, Covington Knolls Subdivision South, R-4 Single Family Residential, Covington Knolls Subdivision East, R -4 Single Family Residential, Covington Knolls Subdivision West, R-4 Single Family Residential, Covington Knolls Subdivision CHARM. rat OF THE AREA The lot is located within Phase 1 of Covington Knolls. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The petitioner and owner of the lot in question, Don Spadoni, is requesting a Variation to allow a proposed 18 by 16 -foot deck to encroach 13 -feet into a required minimum 30 -foot rearyard. The petitioner first approached Staff on April 7 after the Building Department denied a permit for the deck - due to the apparent rearyard encroachment. The petitioner opted to pursue a variation request, in part due to an alleged representation that was made to him at the time of purchase of the property that a deck (of the size proposed) could be built "as -of- right" on the lot. The petitioner has also indicated that the issue has been brought to the attention of the adjacent property owner, who did not voice a concern or objection to the proposed deck encroachment. Although neither of these items are germane to the variation request, they do provide a framework and context for the request itself. Photographs (exhibit 4) have been submitted which illustrate the subject property and the proposed location of the deck with regard to the adjacent property owner. The proposed deck would provide access from the "drop - oft' doors on the rear wall of the home to the backyard area. The buildable area of the lot (exhibit 2) allows only a 4 -6 foot deck to be constructed per code. PUBLIC RESPONSE There have been no inquiries regarding this petition STAFF RECONLMENDATION The Staffs 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 Staffs Recommendation is subject to change and modification and should not be construed to be final and irrevocable. Staff generally feels that some degree of zoning relief is warranted in this case. First and foremost, the lot dimensions themselves contribute to the problem. Corner lots as a rule should be considered within a separate context, due to the extraordinary and restrictive setback requirements for 3 of the 4 yards to be 25 feet or more. On a lot that is oddly configured and/or less than 12,500 square feet, these setbacks can pose major obstacles to the placement of a deck. In general, it should also be noted that decks are most often an afterthought for new homeowners, whose energy and efforts are focussed almost entirely on the construction of the home itself. Staff also would like the Commission to consider revisiting the manner in which decks are regulated in light of the numerous deck variation requests that have been filed as of late. And for every deck variation request that the Commission reviews there are many more which are never filed due to the cost and length of the process. Staff would recommend that the Commission consider either extending the allowable encroachment (currently 3 -feet) or regulating decks as accessory, rather than principal structures. It is a common rule of thumb in the administration of a zoning ordinance, that when numerous and continuous variations are requested from a specific regulation, it is a clear sign that the regulation needs to be revisited and changed or even discontinued.