O-01-99 01/11/1999ORDINANCE NOg -( 9
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIANCE
AT 818 STATE STREET, LEMONT, ILLINOIS
(Patty Cakes Bakery)
ADOPTED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT
day
Published in pamphlet form by
authority of the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village
of Lemont, Cook, DuPage, and Will
Counties, is this //tiC
day of /t/( 1999.
1999.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIANCE
AT 818 STATE STREET, LEMONT, ILLINOIS
(Patty Cakes Bakery)
WHEREAS, an application has been filed by David Pierson in connection with a Request for
Variation for the property legally described in Exhibit "A" and located at 818 State Street, Lemont,
Illinois; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is seeking relief to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance to allow a
sideyard setback of 6.89 feet for a building addition rather than the minimum required 35 foot setback
for an existing commercial structure, pursuant to Section VIII.C.4.a.(4) 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 December
1, 1998; 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, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Lemont, that the petitioner, David Pierson, be granted the following:
.SECTION 1: Variance
A variance to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance to allow a side yard setback of 6.89 feet for a
building addition rather than the minimum required 35 foot setback for an existing commercial
structure, pursuant to Section VIII.C. 4.a.(4) of the Lemont Zoning Ordinance.
2
SECTION 2: Conditions.
1. The project shall be built substantially in conformance with the site plan, attached
as exhibit `B ", except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and
Ordinances.
2. The variance approval shall expire after one year from the date of Village Board
approval, if at that time the petitioner has not yet applied for and received a building
and /or site development permit.
3. The addition shall be constructed with materials and colors that substantially match
those of the existing structure.
4. The fence and plantings along the southern property line shall be installed prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the remodeled structure.
5. The petitioner shall comply with current parking standards, in both configuration,
dimension and the required minimum number of stalls for the site - through either the
improvement of the parking lot to current Village standards, or through the execution
of a shared access and /or parking agreement with the property to the north.
3
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF USTEES OF
THE VAGE OF LEMONY, COUNTY OF COOK, ILLINOIS, on this day of
1999.
Barbara Buschman
Keith Latz
Connie Markiewicz
Rick Rimbo
Ralph Schobert
Mary Studebaker
Att
Approved by me this
AYES NAYS PASSED ABSENT
CHARLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk
1999.
r 41141/41_ �---'
ENE SMOL EN, Village Clerk
Prepared by:
Planning Department
Village of Lemont
418 Main Street
Lemont, 1160439
RALPH SCHOBERT, Mayor Pro -tem
4
EXHIBIT A
LOT 6 IN BLOCK 1 IN SINGER'S NORTON AND WARNER SUBDIVISION OF THE
SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH,
RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.
PIN #: 22 -29- 116- 016 -0000
,,0,09
o/
, o/
,,0,09
0
0
•
Mayor
Richard A. Kwasneski
Village Clerk
Charlene M. Smollen
Administrator
Steven A. Jones
Mayor Richard A. Kwasneski and
Board of Trustees
Village of Lemont
418 Main Street
Lemont, IL 60439
LEMONT
Village of Faith
418 Main Street • Lemont, IL 60439 -3788
(630) 257 -1550
Fax (630) 257 -1598
email: vlemont @aol.com
RE: Case Number 98.39, Patty Cake Bakery - Variance Request
Dear Mayor Kwasneski and Village Trustees:
Trustees
Barbara Buschman
Keith Latz
Connie Markiewicz
Rick Rimbo
Ralph Schobert
Mary Studebaker
The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above noted case at the December 1, 1998 meeting.
David Pierson, representing Patty Cake Bakery which plans to relocate to the existing building at 818 State Street, is
requesting:
A variance for a reduction in the minimum side yard requirements from the required 35 -foot minimum setback to a
6.89 foot lot line setback, in order to construct an addition onto the rear of the existing structure.
The Commission heard testimony from the Village Planner, the petitioner, and members of the audience. Certain audience
members raised numerous concerns and objections to the proposal:
• Bill Miller, the owner of the property directly to the north, questioned whether the business would meet the current
parking standards, and alleged that there was not sufficient area on the lot to meet the minimum number of spaces
needed, and that it would result in bakery customers parking on his property instead.
• Another audience member that lives next to the business expressed concern about auto traffic entering the alley to the
west, and whether it was possible to fence off the alley to prevent customers frequenting the businesses from using it.
Commissioners questioned the petitioner on numerous issues, relative to the configuration of the parking lot, the type of fence
and vegetative buffer that would be erected, and the nature of the business the petitioner was proposing to operate.
Commission members also encouraged Mr. Miller and Mr. Pierson to work together on a shared parking agreement, in light
of the likelihood that it would be impractical and perhaps even impossible to prevent customers from parking on each others'
respective lots.
g��
..Following careful review of the petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission's vote to recommend approval of the variation
passed by a vote of 5 -0 -1. Their decision was based in part, on the following findings of fact:
1) the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by
the regulations in the district in which it is located;
Findings: The use of the property and profitability of the business may be significantly impaired, if the proposed
addition cannot be built. The petitioner has identified the necessity of expanding the current structure to
accommodate his daily business operations.
2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
Findings: The configuration of the lot poses an obstacle to any moderate additions or enlargements to the primary
structure, that will also effect compliance with minimum parking requirements.
3) the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
Findings: The immediate locale is characterized by a mix of both residential and commercial uses. The modest
expansion of an existing commercial structure is not likely to essentially alter the nature of the area as a
whole.
4) the application of the regulations of the zoning ordinance to the subject property would result in practical difficulties
or a hardship, considering the following criteria;
a) the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property;
b) there are conditions unique to the subject property that are generally not applicable to other property in the
same zoning classification;
c) the practical difficulty or hardship is not self - imposed;
d) granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;
e) the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or
substantially increase the congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public
safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood;
Findings: The size of the lot certainly creates difficulties in further enlarging the principal structure. While a hardship
may not exist in this case, the variance petition also does not pose any measurable threat to the public health,
safety and welfare - which the Zoning Ordinance is ultimately intended to protect and preserve.
Sincerely,
Terry Duffy, Chairperson
Planning and Zoning Commission
Motion tied 3 -3 by roll call vote with Mr. Bruce, Mr. Metzger and Chairman Duffy
opposed.
Mr. Metzger said that he is in favor of annexation, but not rezoning.
[UBLICHEARING /Lit / 9 P rt z
A. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Mr. Bruce to open the
Public Hearing case number 98.39 Request for Variance to allow a side yard
setback of 6.89 feet for a building addition at 818 State Street, known as the
Patty Cakes Bakery.
Mr. Fitz said that the petitioner is requesting a variance to the side yard setback
from the required 35 feet to approximately seven feet for the existing building,
which is currently occupied by Jay Bird's Catering. Mr. Fitz said that the
petitioner is looking to purchase the property and expand the building for his
bakery business. Mr. Fitz said that the proposed addition will not increase the
side yard encroachment, but the scope of the encroachment will increase. Mr.
Fitz said that the petitioner plans to erect a five foot high board on board fence
with landscaping to buffer the residence to the south.
The petitioner, David Pierson, said that he plans to replace the 14' by 12'
structure in the rear with a 24' by 22' addition, which will include a basement. In
addition, Mr. Pierson said that he plans to change the posts on the porch and
replace the windows. Mr. Pierson said that he needs the addition due to the lack
of a basement.
Chairman Duffy asked about the sign in the front. Mr. Pierson said that he plans
to keep the sign and adjust it aesthetically. Mr. Perry said that as long as Mr.
Pierson just plans to resurface the sign, any changes would be considered
grandfathered.
Mr. Pierson said that he has 1718 square feet and nine parking spaces, which
Village Ordinance requires eight and a half spaces. Mr. Pierson said that there is
a direct line out at 11 feet with the State Street reconstruction and there is
enough room to drive in and drive out.
Mr. Metzger said that he thinks the proposed parking will be a problem.
Chairman Duffy said that people are used to entering White Hen at the north
and exiting at the south. Mr. Pierson said that he has no problem with angling
the parking or keeping the aisles straight.
Bill Miller, of 814 State Street, owner of White Hen and Ceaser's Dry Cleaners,
said that the addition would limit the rear parking to four spaces, thereby losing
3
two spaces. Mr. Pierson said that he will provide the same number of parking
spaces. Mr. Miller said that he is concerned about Mr. Pierson's patrons pulling
in and out on his property, the encroachment on his property and the safety of
his patrons pulling out of his property. Mr. Perry said that parking is not the
issue, the variance is the issue, and Mr. Miller and Mr. Pierson need to work
together. Mr. Miller said that he is not against Mr. Pierson's business, but he
would like to see something to scale to prove that Mr. Pierson's patrons can
enter, exit and park on his lot.
Linda O'Connor, of 827 Singer, said that traffic in the alley is a big problem. Ms.
O'Connor suggested that the area be blocked off with a fence like it was before,
which would alleviate the alley traffic and any parking problems.
A motion was made by Mr. Metzger and seconded by Ms. Murphy to close the
Public Hearing. Motion carried 6 -0.
A motion was made by Ms. Murphy and seconded by Ms. Pearson to approve
case number 98.39 Request for Variance to allow a side yard setback of 6.89
feet for a building addition at 818 State Street, known as the Patty Cakes
Bakery. Motion approved 5 -0 -1, with Mr. Stapleton abstaining.
B. A motion was made by Mr. Stapleton and seconded by Mr. Bruce to open the
Public Hearing case number 98.24 Request for Rezoning from Lemont R -1 to R-
3 Single Family Residence District and Request for Variance at vacant property
on McCarthy Road, known as the Ottolino property.
Mr. Fitz said that the original rezoning request for the 1.25 acre parcel from R -1
to R -4 was not favorably received, so the petitioner resubmitted the proposal for
two Tots with direct access from McCarthy Road, instead of three lots with a
proposed access drive. Mr. Fitz said that to facilitate access to McCarthy Road,
a variance would be required from the 100 foot frontage requirement to 82 feet.
Dave Krusnis, of 13710 McCarthy Road, said that he lives east of the property
and commented that the petitioner is not present again.
Frieda Krusnis, of 13710 McCarthy Road, said that there is a drain tile and a
wetland on the property and asked if that could be built on. Chairman Duffy said
that the petitioner would have to provide proper engineering to build on the
property. Ms. Krusnis said that the wetlands are not protected and the property
is so low that they are concerned any grading will flood them and their
neighbors.
Jim Fenerowski, of 13760 McCarthy Road, said that there is a problem between
the Village and the Township and the existing water problem needs to be
4
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Prepared by Andrew Fitz, Village Planner
GENERAL CASEFILE INFORMATION
Case Number
Commission Meeting Date
Petitioner
Request
Location
Parcel Number
Size
Street Frontage
Current Zoning
Contiguous Zoning
Current Land Use of
subject property
Contiguous Land Use
Exhibits
1) Location/Zoning Map.
2) Site Plan.
98413.,3c1
December 1, 1998
David Pierson
Variation, reduction in sideyard setback by approx. 28 feet
818 State Street.
22 -29 -116 -016
Approx. 6630 sq ft. (0.15 acre)
60 feet on State Street
B -1, Neighborhood Shopping District
North, B -2, Central Shopping District
South, R -6, Multi - Family Residential
East, R-4,. Single Family Residential (Detached)
West, R-4, Single Family Residential (Detached)
Food Catering Facility
North, White Hen Pantry & United Cleaners, South, West, East:
Single Family Dwellings
C1t LRACTER OF 1'HE Ak
The area is mixed use in nature. United Cleaners and the White Hen Pantry are located directly to the north and
share an access drive onto State Street with the subject property.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
The petitioner is requesting a reduction of approx. 28.11 feet in the minimum sideyard setback requirements,
resulting in a setback of 6.89 feet rather than the required 35 feet - in order to construct a 22' by 24' addition and
porch onto the rear of the existing building. The "Patty Cake Bakery" is currently located in Lyons and is
planning to relocate to Lemont for it's locational advantages, and the opportunity to expand it's current
operations. The proposed addition will not increase the encroachment of the existing structure into the sideyard,
but it will extend the length of that portion of the building further along the side yard - thereby expanding the
scope of the encroachment. The petitioner plans to buffer the addition from the residence to the south, by
installing a five (5) foot board on board fence in combination with some plantings.
HISTORY OF 1'HE PROPERTY
The property is currently the site of Jay Bird's Catering. The business is operating on a limited basis and intends
to remain open through the end of the year.
STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions
allowed by the regulations in the district in which it is located;
Findings: The use of the property and profitability of the business may be significantly impaired, if the
proposed addition cannot be built. The petitioner has identified the necessity of expanding the
current structure to accommodate his daily business operations.
2) the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
Findings: The configuration of the lot poses an obstacle to any moderate additions or enlargements to the
primary structure, that will also effect compliance with minimum parking requirements.
3) the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
Findings: The immediate locale is characterized by a mix of both residential and commercial uses The
modest expansion of an existing commercial structure is not likely to essentially alter the nature of
the area as a whole.
4) the application of the regulations of the zoning ordinance to the subject property would result in practical
difficulties or a hardship, considering the following criteria;
a) the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical condition of the specific property;
b) there are conditions unique to the subject property that are generally not applicable to other
property in the same zoning classification;
c) the practical difficulty or hardship is not self-imposed;
d) granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property
or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located;
e) the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or
substantially increase the congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger
the public safei, , or substantially diminish or impair prop ty values in the neighborhood;
Findings: The size of the lot certainly creates difficulties in further enlarging the principal structure. While a
hardship may not exist in this case, the variance petition also does not pose any measurable threat
to the public health, safety and welfare - which the Zoning Ordinance is ultimately intended to
protect and preserve.
PUBLIC RESPONSE
There have been several inquiries from property and business owners to the north regarding parking requirements
and configurations for the new business.
STAFF RECONE IENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions:
1) that the project shall be built substantially in conformance with the site plan, attached as exhibit "2",
except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances;
2) that the variance approval shall expire after one year from the date of Village Board approval, if at that
time the petitioner has not yet applied for and received a building and/or site development permit;
3) The addition shall be constructed with materials and colors that substantially match those of the existing
structure; and
4)
5)
The fence and plantings along the southern property line shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for the remodeled structure.
The petitioner shall comply with current parking standards, in both configuration, dimension and the
required minimum number of stalls for the site - through either the improvement of the parking lot to
current Village standards, or through the execution of a shared access and/or parking agreement with the
property to the north.
\ ,n. Mr-1
•
ATE l.t
• ,
. , •
N.E.3.
r.� — —
: n--
=-
-= -=1-
am imi smMow :
ow ■ Pm; 3
MI' NS
-fir. L
:!aath M
s EarrI -.MI
_
1 II? 513
A tar: 9 • 0,
4
LEMONT
V3 =3
PUD
R -3
PUD B-
PUD R-
EXHIBIT 1
Patty Cake Variation
98.39
mot• ow
BtIrD11
fl/�t
•■�
F MK fi.vn►".-*
T.t•■• n tg
g..i f.1♦
�. t_LLi 1J=I
Stem' fe
AS635 •••e•%•
r
J:t .4S. •
4✓: �4
C.c.'s. '•
■0■
MEIN
.U.
717_1111
crit
•
QtOF I,r C• TO
to I ar u, ,E ). C-••••••..
N...• ".wt.. • P.4.0,
FNrw..... VR r ,ir fa• +02
1 Lttii wv. t
Nt.
/1••••••
—' eissos fro[[
!...1•1•• Ban.
h..i._.r_ --
1•1'3 M t
r..•• 2 &' . ' Aals.rN.J •
_...627t,,..1 /1• xi• • 124r „ra
••••••ze•••/I.siwt••• ••
S, rc P