Muyni
← Back to Palatine

Zoning Board

Regular Meeting

Palatine, IL · June 28, 2022

AgendaMinutes

Minutes

VILLAGE OF PALATINE VILLAGE HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 E. WOOD STREET PALATINE, IL 60067-5339 – (847) 359-9050 http://www.palatine.il.us ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES ● JUNE 28, 2022 Village Hall - Council Chambers Regular Meeting 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Cindy Roth-Wurster Commissioner Present Jan Wood Commissioner Present Jerry Luszczak Commissioner Present Theodore McGinn Commissioner Absent Kevin Cavanaugh Commissioner Absent John Pirog Commissioner Present II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1. Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting - Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM Ms. Roth-Wurster made a motion to approve the minutes of June 14, 2022; seconded by Mr. Pirog RESULT: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner SECONDER: John Pirog, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1070 N. Cardinal Drive Notice was published in the Daily Herald on June 13, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Special Use 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey/ Site Plan 4. Existing Conditions 5. Fence Elevation (sample) 6. Neighbor Consent Forms 7. Public Notice Sworn in staff: Ms. Lyn Bremanis and Mr. Alex Bradshaw Sworn in the petitioner: Ms. Marta Brzostowski 1017 N Cardinal Dr Ms. Brzostowski stated they currently have a picket fence around the property that is old and not in good condition. She stated they want to replace with a private solid 6ft white fence for privacy. Ms. Brzostowski stated the picket style allows trash from street to enter her yard. She explained the fence is important for privacy to be able to sit in the yard and enjoy quiet. She spoke to the standards stating it won’t destroy the vistas because it will be nicer than the old one and will not distract from the overall appearance of the community. Ms. Brzostowski stated they put in a new driveway and looking to update property and make more comfortable. Mr. Pirog asked if any other homes have a 6ft high fence. Ms. Brzostowski stated the other corners do referring to aerial to show 2 other houses. Mr. Pirog pointed out they still have to clean garbage outside the fence. Ms. Brzostowski agreed stating they will keep it nice with landscaping. Ms. Roth-Wurster clarified they are replacing in the same location just changing style. Ms. Brzostowski answered yes. Ms. Wood referred to the existing conditions slide and pointed out the fence looks in good condition. She asked why the 6ft solid would enhance the area. Ms. Brzostowski explained the fence would block visibility of their stuff in yard. She pointed out the neighbors submitted consent letters and are happy with the new fence. Mr. Luszczak asked staff why they need relief. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 2 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 Mr. Bradshaw explained they are replacing the fence in the same place but changing from 4ft to 6ft. He explained it is pre-existing non-conforming. He further explained the only way to replace without relief is to replace with the same height and style. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview explaining the proposed fence will remain setback 10ft with existing landscaping to remain. He stated the proposed fence abuts the 20 foot front yard of 1070 E. Olde Virginia Rd. He stated the petitioners have received letters of consent from all four directly adjacent property owners. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out the property across Cardinal Drive from the Subject Property, 1071 E. Cardinal, has an existing non-conforming six (6) foot solid fence that is setback approximately 13 feet from the side lot line abutting Olde Virginia Rd. He stated it is not uncommon in the area to see these type of fences in these locations. Mr. Bradshaw stated Community Services and Engineering have reviewed and had no issues. Ms. Roth-Wurster asked about the distance between the fence and sidewalk in the slide. Mr. Bradshaw spoke to the other properties in the area having similar fences approx. 13ft off line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are proposing to replace an existing 4-foot open style fence with a 6-foot solid fence. The proposed fence will be in the exact location as the existing fence, which is set back approximately 10 feet from the side property line that abuts Olde Virginia Road. Said property line also abuts the side lot line of the front yard of the adjacent lot to the north. Per Code, the required setback is 20 feet. The Petitioner has received letters of consent from all four directly adjacent property owners, including 1070 E. Olde Virginia Rd (directly north). The existing landscaping between the existing fence and the side lot line abutting the street will remain to provide an effective buffer. Ultimately, Staff did not identify any negative impacts the proposed fence would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed Special Use with the following condition: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the site plan and elevation plan submitted by the Petitioners, Jacek and Marta Brzostowski, except as said plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Pirog made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Pirog spoke to the standards stating he thinks it meets all besides enhancing the appearance. He pointed out the neighbors are ok with it and there are others VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 3 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 in community. Ms. Roth-Wurster agreed with Mr. Pirog. She stated it is not too close to street and there was a fence there before and had no line of site issues. Ms. Wood agreed with Mr. Pirog. She pointed out Staff and the neighbors feel it’s acceptable and there are other homes in area with similar fences. Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on July 11, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 4 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 2. 433 N. Stark Drive Notice was published in the Daily Herald on June 13, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Special Use 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey 4. Site Plan 5. Fence Elevation (sample) 6. Letter of Consent 441 N Stark Ave 7. Public Notice Sworn in petitioner: Ms. Amanda Hall and Mr. Jeremy Hall 433 N. Stark Drive Ms. Hall stated they want to fence around their back yard. She explained it would be 6ft along the north property line transitioning to 4ft picket scalloped fence to sidewalk and back up to their house. She stated they are in a unique situation based on their house faces Middleton Ct but legal front yard is Stark Dr. but because of shape primary portion of yard is in the northwest corner of lot. Ms. Hall stated the fence will be ascetically pleasing, provide privacy and contain the pets and kids. She stated Stark is high traffic from high school so this will provide a buffer. She stated they originally intended the privacy all around but decided to compromise and go with picket to help with site lines but still help with containment. She stated there will be landscaping along sidewalk. Ms. Hall pointed out if put at 30ft it would not give much of a back yard. Mr. Pirog asked what area requires the relief. Mr. Bradshaw explained any front yard fence needs relief. He referred to the site plan slide and marked the area in question. Ms. Hall explained they wanted to do privacy fence a bit past setback line to neighbor’s tree because you can see into their family room from the sidewalk. Ms. Wood asked if site plan slide is correct. Ms. Hall answered yes. Mr. Pirog clarified the fence is on lot line. Ms. Hall answered yes pointing out there are other homes similar and will landscape to make look nice. She pointed out they have a small yard and want to maximize space for kids and dogs. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the subject property is zoned R2 with a 30ft front yard setback. He stated the proposed fence will be setback 3 feet from the front property line abutting North Stark Drive with landscaping between the proposed fence and property line. He stated the proposed fence abuts the 30 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 5 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 foot front yard of 441 N. Stark Drive. Mr. Bradshaw stated the petitioners are aware of the front yard line of sight impact questions raised by Staff (for the portion of the 6-foot fence), and have presented consent from the adjacent neighbor at 441, 448 & 436 N. Stark Drive. (submitting 448 and 436 as additional exhibits) Mr. Pirog asked where the 6ft fence is going. Mr. Bradshaw referred to site plan slide to show location of fence. Mr. Pirog asked what requires a special use. Mr. Bradshaw explained everything that is within the front yard. Ms. Wood asked if community services changed their concern when they changed to 4ft picket fence. Mr. Bradshaw stated the line of site concern is still there but the petitioner received consent from that neighbor. Ms. Wood submitted into record the additional consent letters as exhibit C. Mr. Pirog asked if the line of site concern was for driving or walking. Mr. Bradshaw explained it would be for 441 N Stark Dr. and the sidewalk in front and back that curves around the bend. Mr. Pirog asked if it would be 4ft all around could it alleviate the line of site issue. Mr. Bradshaw stated it potentially could. Discussion on location of 6ft fence. Ms. Roth-Wurster asked if line of site is only with 6ft privacy. Mr. Bradshaw stated the 4ft is less of a concern for staff. Ms. Wood asked how it will transition. Mr. Bradshaw explained it goes from 4ft -6ft. He stated there was not a lot of line of site issue with current driveway so staff is not concerned with 4ft. Ms. Wood clarified Community Services still has concern. Mr. Bradshaw answered, that is correct. Sworn in Mr. Richard Murray 648 E Stark Dr Mr. Murray pointed out there are a lot of fences in neighborhood but most are setback more. He stated he knows that makes their yard small but thinks this will change the look of neighborhood. Mr. Pirog asked staff if they know of other homes with fences that are that close to lot line. Mr. Bradshaw answered there is no list but they can be existing nonconforming to the current zoning code. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 6 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are proposing to construct a 4-foot open style fence in the required front yard of the Subject Property. The proposed fence will be set back approximately three (3) feet from the required front property line that abuts N. Stark Drive. Said property line also abuts the side lot line of the front yard of the adjacent lot to the north. Per Code, the required setback is 30 feet. Although it is not required, the Petitioner has proposed landscaping between the existing fence and the front lot line abutting the street, which will provide an effective buffer. Staff identified a potential line of sight question for the property directly to the north (441 N. Stark Drive), abutting the required front side yard of the Subject Property. If the proposed fence plan were amended to maintain a 4-foot fence through the entire front yard (30 feet), Staff would have recommended approval. Staff did not identify any other negative impacts the proposed fence would have on the overall appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends Action at the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Special Use. If the Special Use is approved, Staff recommends the following condition: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the site plan and elevation plan submitted by the Petitioners, Ms. Hall and Jeremy Hall, except as said plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. Ms. Wood asked about the recommendation to amend to 4ft in the front yard. Mr. Bradshaw explained if the transitioned was pushed back an additional 10ft to meet the 30ft line staff would recommend approval referring to the site plan slide to show location. Ms. Hall explained the primary reason to push the privacy beyond the setback is for safety and privacy. She explained people from the sidewalk can see directly into their house. Mr. Pirog asked where the family room is. Ms. Hall referred to existing conditions slide to explain it is by the sliding glass door between the chimneys by patio. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Luszczak made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Wood DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Luszczak stated he sees the need for the privacy. He stated the 6ft doesn’t make a difference with the curved street. Mr. Pirog stated he is hesitant because there are no other homes that have fence. He stated he understand the privacy issue, but that’s an issue with other VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 7 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 homes as well. Ms. Roth-Wurster expressed concern with the line of site issue. Ms. Wood stated fences are not common so it gives you pause but thinks it would be ok. She stated the line of site gives pause but the petitioner has tapered down so that’s an improvement. She pointed out it is just the 10ft that gives the line of site concern. Ms. Wood stated she can’t approve something that would be a safety issue. Aye: Luszcak Nay: Roth-Wurster, Pirog, Woof Motion failed 1-3 Mr. Pirog made a motion to deny the proposed Special Use; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster Ms. Wood summarized that this request has not met the standards and was denied by a vote of 3-1. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on July 11, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 8 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 3. 32 S. Kerwood Street Notice was published in the Daily Herald on June 13, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Variation 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey / Site Plan 4. Public Notice Sworn in petitioner: Ms. Dona Martin 32 S Kerwood Street and John Pancorvo contractor 12 W College Dr. Mr. Pancorvo explained homeowner recently bought the house. He referred to the existing conditions slides to show the paver steps off back door leading to an unsafe loose-gravel patio. He explained the original plan was to follow the outline of the existing stone coming out a little farther into back yard being approx. 640sqft. Mr. Pancorvo stated zoning flagged the permit submittal for percentage of impervious surface which was over due to lot being smaller. He stated they shrunk the patio to approx. 331sqft. He stated the main reason for the request is to make the unsafe patio more stable. He referred to the existing conditions slide to show the orange marks to show proposed new dimensions. Mr. Pancorvo stated they are hiring a professional landscaper to landscape around and the proposed patio for a nicer look and to be safer and it won’t negatively affect drainage of neighboring properties. He stated the patio is not visible from the front. He stated they have obtained letters of consent from neighbors. Mr. Pirog asked if the reduced size is big enough. Ms. Martin stated she would have liked it bigger to fit all the chairs but main issue is the loose gravel is not safe. Mr. Pirog asked if loose gravel does not count on coverage. Mr. Bradshaw states loose gravel is not considered as impervious surface. Mr. Luszczak asked if they considered pavers. Mr. Pancorvo explained regular pavers are impervious and permeable pavers are higher cost. Ms. Wood asked if letter of support were submitted. Ms. Martin stated they were already submitted. Ms. Roth-Wurster asked about water issues. Ms. Martin answered, no. Mr. Pirog expressed concern that the size is not adequate. Mr. Pancorvo explained they tried to appease to staff and get her the safe patio she needs. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 9 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 Ms. Wood asked about the letters. Mr. Bradshaw explained they were attached to the site plan he listed the 3 addresses that submitted.(30,38,& 23 S Kerwood) Ms. Wood asked if it would have to be re-noticed to make bigger. Mr. Bradshaw answered, yes. Ms. Martin stated the notice went out with the original size request. Discussion on the size of proposed patio. Mr. Pancorvo stated it will be a decent size patio. He stated the pictures don’t show it clearly. He stated no one will fall off the patio. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the subject property is zoned R-2 and annexed into the Village in 1869. He stated the existing lot is nonconforming in lot area with the surrounding lots being comparable in size, and most had rear patio areas. Mr. Bradshaw stated the existing lot coverage is approximately 48% (3,200 sf) which exceeds the maximum 45% lot coverage by 207 sf. And the new patio will add approximately 331 sf to the total existing lot coverage, bringing the total proposed lot coverage to approximately 54% (3,531 sf). Mr. Bradshaw explained the Code requires a standard Variation to permit an increase in the lot coverage to 54% (3,531 sf) instead of the maximum 45% (2,993 sf), being a difference of 538 sf. He stated Community Services and Engineering have reviewed and Engineering has one comment requiring all excavated material to be removed off site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioner is proposing to construct a new concrete patio to replace an existing crushed gravel patio. Staff agrees that a concrete patio would be significantly safer more accessible than the crushed gravel. The Subject Property is smaller than standard R-2 Zoned residential properties, and the proposed patio has a smaller overall footprint than the existing. With that said, Staff has not identified any potential negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Variation, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioner’s agent, John Pancorvo, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Villages Codes and Ordinances. 2. All excavated material must be removed off site in a matter acceptable to the Village Engineer. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 10 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 Ms. Roth-Wurster made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Mr. Pirog DELIBERATIONS: Ms. Roth-Wurster spoke to the standards stating reasonable return improving a gravel patio into a concrete patio would make a difference in the home. She stated when looking at lot coverage water issues are the concern but Engineering has reviewed and that’s not the case. She stated this will be safer and won’t be seen from the street. Ms. Wood spoke to reasonable return and uniqueness with smaller lot. She stated there is a patio there now, and they are making it smaller and won’t be seen from the front yard. She stated she thinks the standards have been met. Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on July 11, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner SECONDER: John Pirog, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 11 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 4. 110 N. Benton Street Notice was published in the Daily Herald on June 13, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Variation 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey 4. Site Plan 5. Elevations 6. Public Notice Sworn in the petitioner: Mr. Chris Curry Representative of Archadeck of Chicagoland 395 W Northwest Hwy Mr. Curry stated they are proposing to demolish the existing deck and build new deck that encroaches into the setback. He explained with the yard layout this is the only way to make good yard space. He stated it won’t alter the locality and will allow more functional use of the yard and increase the value of property. Ms. Wood asked about the variation for the existing deck. Mr. Bradshaw explained the existing deck received a variation for setback relief was given in 1996. Ms. Wood asked if this is bigger. Mr. Curry explained the new deck is approx. 237 sq.ft. Ms. Wood asked how much bigger the new deck is. Mr. Curry stated they are demoing approx. 175sqft and the new one is approx. 236 sq.ft. Ms. Wood asked if they just want a bigger deck. Mr. Curry explained they are adding the lower area to add more functionality to use in backyard. Ms. Wood asked staff about lot coverage percentages. Mr. Bradshaw stated the existing is approx. 57% and they are increasing to approx. 58%. Ms. Wood asked if they were approved previously for the 57%. Mr. Bradshaw answered, yes. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview stating the subject property is zoned R2 single family and annexed into Village in 1869. He stated it is a substandard lot with approx. 4350 sqft. He stated the existing lot coverage is approximately 57% (2,499 sf) which exceeds the maximum 45% lot coverage by 540 sf. Mr. Bradshaw stated the petitioner is proposing to reconfigure the deck adding VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 12 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 approximately 20 sqft to the overall lot coverage. He pointed out the existing deck was granted setback relief in 1996 and this setback will be maintained. He stated Community Services and Engineering have reviewed and have no issues. Mr. Pirog clarified the setback is maintained and asked where the increase is. Mr. Bradshaw referred to existing condition to show area of removal and expansion. Ms. Roth-Wurster clarified there are differences in the existing and proposed elevations. Mr. Bradshaw answered, yes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are requesting to replace and reconfigure the existing deck off the rear of their home. At 57%, the property currently exceeds the maximum lot coverage (45%) as the existing deck received a Variation in 1996 for setback relief, and was approved prior to lot coverage regulations. As the proposed deck will maintain the previously granted setback, Staff believes it will not alter the essential character of the area. The proposed deck will further increase the overall lot coverage that already exceeds the maximum permitted. The Village Engineer did not identify any storm water management issues with the Subject Property. However, the Subject Property size is substandard and creates a hardship for the homeowner, restricting improvements to the lot. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the requested Variation, subject to the following condition: 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioners, Randy & Rebecca Poznan on 5/19/2022, except as such plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Pirog made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Pirog spoke to the standards. He stated the deck is currently in place not increasing distance to the property line. He pointed out the uniqueness with the substandard lot size. Ms. Roth-Wurster agreed with Mr. Pirog. She stated it is unique circumstance and won’t alter character of neighborhood. She stated Archadeck does a nice job and it will allow better use of deck. She stated there is no water issues so is less concerned with lot coverage. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 13 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 Ms. Wood spoke to the reasonable return and uniqueness. She stated it is a slight increase in lot coverage and no issues in past with storm water. She stated she thinks the standards have been met. Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on July 11, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 14 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 5. 619 E. Dundee Road Notice was published in the Daily Herald on June 13, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Special Use 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey 4. Business Plan 5. Floor Plan 6. Elevation 7. Public Notice Sworn in the petitioner: Mr. Alton Klein director of Design and Entitlements for Kids Empire 620 Arrow Highway California Mr. Klein stated Kids Empire is an indoor playground for kids 12 and under. He referred to slides to show proposed play equipment. He stated they do not offer drop off services and required parents to be with children at all times. Mr. Klein stated they sell only prepackaged food. He stated during birthday parties they will contract with local bakery and pizzeria to provide those items. He explained these items will be provided on demand because they will have no storage facility for them. He stated these type of facilities are in demand for children to play in a safe area. Mr. Klein stated they currently have 35 parks open and design and operate within the realm of the local jurisdictions public health and welfare with the considerations of their guest public safety and health. He stated they have employees on site to monitor child safety and clean every night. He stated they would not cause injury to property values. Mr. Klein referred to slide to show location next to Hobby Lobby and stated they will have no music outside. Ms. Wood pointed out there is a lot of parking so there is no concern. She stated there is a lot of seating that takes up a lot of the floor plan. She asked about parents being required to stay for birthday parties. Mr. Klein stated they don’t want to be in a daycare use. He stated the parents are responsible for their own children even during parties. Ms. Roth-Wurster asked if this size is standard. Mr. Klein explained their locations range in size. He spoke to other venues they have. He agreed there are many tables but stated they never get to capacity. Ms. Bremanis gave a brief overview of the business plan including hours and staff and guest occupancy. She stated the parking plaza is well over parked. She stated Community Services, Environmental Health and Fire Prevention have all reviewed and did not identify any issues. Ms. Bremanis referred to the existing conditions slides to show conceptual sign and location. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 15 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 The proposed business is occupying a vacant space in the Deer Grove Shopping Center. This use is compatible with the other retail, service, and restaurant uses that presently occupy the shopping center. The proposed use should not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the floor plan and business plan prepared by the petitioner dated 04/30/2022, except such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Pirog made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Pirog stated it is a good use of property. He stated he likes that parent have to stay for safety issues. Ms. Roth-Wurster stated it meet the standards. She pointed out they have a lot of locations and there are no parking issues. Ms. Wood stated the standards have been met. She stated there is a need for indoor recreation facilities in Palatine. Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 4-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on July 11, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn, Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 16 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 28, 2022 IV. COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 17

Agenda

VILLAGE OF PALATINE VILLAGE HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 E. WOOD STREET PALATINE, IL 60067-5339 – (847) 359-9050 http://www.palatine.il.us ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA ● JUNE 28, 2022 Village Hall - Council Chambers Regular Meeting 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1. Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting - Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 1070 N. Cardinal Drive Special Use to permit a fence in the side yard abutting a street where the side lot line of said yard abuts the side lot line of the front yard of an adjacent lot. 2. 433 N. Stark Drive Special Use to permit a fence in the required front yard. 3. 32 S. Kerwood Street Variation to permit lot coverage to be 54%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. 4. 110 N. Benton Street Variation to permit the lot coverage to be 58%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. 5. 619 E. Dundee Road Special Use to permit an indoor sports and recreational facility. IV. COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 1 2.1 VILLAGE OF PALATINE VILLAGE HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS 200 E. WOOD STREET PALATINE, IL 60067-5339 – (847) 359-9050 http://www.palatine.il.us ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES ● JUNE 14, 2022 Village Hall - Council Chambers Regular Meeting 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) Brent Larson Commissioner Absent Cindy Roth-Wurster Commissioner Present Jan Wood Commissioner Present Jerry Luszczak Commissioner Present Theodore McGinn Commissioner Absent Kevin Cavanaugh Commissioner Present John Pirog Commissioner Present II. MINUTES APPROVAL 1. Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting - May 10, 2022 7:00 PM - Accepted RESULT: ACCEPTED [5 TO 0] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Cavanaugh, Pirog ABSENT: McGinn RECUSED: Larson VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 1 Packet Pg. 2 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 III. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 102 N. Crescent Avenue - VAR Driveway Expansion - Recommend to Deny Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Variation 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Site Plan Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) 4. Plat of Survey 5. Public Notice Sworn in staff: Mr. Alex Bradshaw and Ms. Lyn Bremanis Sworn in the petitioner: Mr. Vijay Dara 102 N Crescent Av Mr. Dara stated they currently have a 2-car garage driveway meant for 2 cars to park next to each other. He explained they want to expand the driveway 9 feet to park additional cars, because his family is growing. He stated they want the expansion to go to lot line. Mr. Dara explained a SUV is 15 feet long so in order to park both they need the full 30 feet of expansion. Ms. Wood asked how they would be parked. Mr. Dara explained he wants to park 2 cars in the extension and none in the driveway. Ms. Wood asked if possible to park and meet code. Mr. Dara stated it would be close. Mr. Pirog clarified the current parking and what is being proposed. Mr. Dara explained currently 2 across and adding to allow 3. Mr. Luszczak asked about proposed material. Mr. Dara stated asphalt. Ms. Wood asked how many cars are in garage. Mr. Dara stated they have 2 in garage and 1 in driveway. Ms. Wood asked how many vehicles they have. Mr. Dara answered 3. Ms. Wood asked what was the need for the extension. Mr. Dara explained it is easier to drive in and out, without interference. Mr. Pirog asked if they considered going the other direction to avoid the fire hydrant. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 2 Packet Pg. 3 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 Mr. Dara answered no. Mr. Luszczak asked staff about lot coverage Mr. Bradshaw stated they are well below Discussion on how the expansion will be accessed. Mr. Luszczak asked if he will still use the garage. Mr. Dara explained they will have 2 in garage and will park extra cars in the yellow proposed area. He stated they are looking to buy a 4th car. Mr. Cavanaugh clarified they are looking to be able to pull out of garage and not Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) move other cars. Mr. Dara answered yes. Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview explained the surrounding properties are all zoned R-2. He referred to aerial marked with stars with compliant driveway expansions. He stated the subject property is approximately 11,000 square feet, with a single family residence and a 2 car garage. Mr. Bradshaw explained the allowable width for a 2-car garage is 30 feet, which the request would meet if they tapered down to 25 feet 5 feet, from the lot line. Community Services have reviewed and have determined tapering the driveway to 25 feet within 5 feet of the lot line is an achievable alternative that can be done, without zoning relief. Mr. Pirog clarified if they taper no zoning relief would be needed. Mr. Bradshaw stated that is correct. Mr. Bradshaw engineering has reviewed and is concerned about the fire hydrant in the parkway, which is adjacent to the driveway apron and in front of the proposed expansion being a potential driving conflict. Mr. Cavanaugh referred to aerial and asked why not conform to code. Mr. Dara pointed out some of the starred properties are 3 car garages. Mr. Bradshaw explained that 3 car garages are still required to taper down at the lot line. Mr. Cavanaugh want to do because they will get 4th car. Mr. Dara answered that is correct. Mr. Dara pointed out there is a non-compliant house at the corner. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing driveway width to 30 feet. Per Code, the proposal will exceed the maximum driveway width within five (5) feet of the front lot line by approximately five (5) feet. While Staff ultimately understands what the Petitioner is trying to accomplish, with increased parking spaces, Staff does not believe that adequate justification for the Variation has been VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 3 Packet Pg. 4 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 established. Additionally, Staff identified several other properties in the immediate neighborhood that have expanded driveways, which all appear to taper down to under 25 feet, within five (5) feet of the lot line. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the request to the Zoning Board of Appeals. If the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends approval, Staff recommends the following conditions: 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioner, Vijay Dara, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Pirog made a motion to deny; seconded by Mr. Cavanaugh DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Pirog spoke to standards and how they are not met. He stated he understands his situation but is concerned about the fire hydrant. Mr. Cavanaugh stated the request doesn’t meet standards Ms. Wood stated she understands why they want but thinks there are alternatives and can accomplish what they want within standards Ms. Roth-Wurster agreed doesn’t meet standards Ms. Wood summarized that this request was unanimously denied by a vote of 5-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 20, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMEND TO DENY [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: John Pirog, Commissioner SECONDER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Cavanaugh, Pirog ABSENT: Larson, McGinn VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 4 Packet Pg. 5 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 2. 587 W. Lake Cook Road - VAR Circular Driveway - Recommended to Approve Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Variation 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Site Plan 4. Plat of Survey 5. Public Notice Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) Sworn in Mr. Caesar Carranza and Jose Carranza 587 W. Lake Cook Rd Mr. Carranza explained the reason for the request is safety concerns. He stated that Lake Cook Road is a 45 mph road and there have been near accidents pulling out from the property. Other neighbors have a circular drive on Lake Cook Road, the Petitioner worked with Village staff to determine the length and width of driveway Ms. Wood clarified why it is difficult to turn around Mr. Carranza explained it is hard to turn around when multiple vehicles are in the drive. He stated the circular drive will not be used for parking but rather to exit. Mr. Carranza pointed out they adjusted the width with the Village suggestions Mr. Pirog asked how the width is calculated Mr. Bradshaw explained the 76.4 feet at the widest point. Ms. Roth-Wurster clarified it is currently gravel and will be asphalt Mr. Carranza stated that is correct. He explained they have been putting off changing the gravel to asphalt because in the future they will connect sewer to the city Mr. Pirog asked about the location of the fire hydrant Mr. Bradshaw referred to slide to show location Mr. Carranza stated it will be 7-8 ft away. He pointed out they have over ½ acre which makes this all possible. He stated it would be great if Cook County could lower the speed limit because people race on the street. He stated he knows that is impossible, so the circular drive is the best solution Mr. Bradshaw gave a brief overview pointing out the surrounding properties are a mix of planned developments and single family homes. He stated the subject property was annexed into Village in 2004, zoned R-1 and approximately 21,000 square feet. He pointed out the combined width at the lot line will be approximately 30 feet, where the zoning ordinance allows 25 feet. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out the circular drive will also require an additional curb cut which is under the jurisdiction of Cook County and will require additional approval from VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 5 Packet Pg. 6 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 the county highway department. He pointed out the existing driveway currently consists of unimproved gravel and will be resurfaced as part of the scope of work for this project. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out there is a recreational vehicle (RV) that has been historically stored on the subject property and the petitioner was made aware of the code requirements for storing a RV in a residential district, and has since made accommodations to store the RV off site. He stated both the building coverage and lot coverage are within the allowable percentage per Code. He stated engineering has reviewed and indicated a building permit will not be issued until the Cook County Highway Department permit is issued. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioner indicates the proposed circular driveway on the Subject Property Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) will improve access and flow, when entering and leaving the residence. Staff agrees with the Petitioner, as a circular driveway will make access off, and on to, Lake Cook Road significantly safer. However, while Staff understands that there are other proximate properties with circular driveways, none have gone through a Variation process, as they were constructed prior to the adoption of the relevant Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner is aware of the recreational vehicle ordinance requirements and has secured off-site parking accommodations. Per the application materials, the driveway expansion will not be utilized for recreational vehicle storage. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the requested Variations, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioner, Jose Carranza, except as such plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. 2. A building permit will not be issued by the Village of Palatine until a permit is issued by the Cook County Highway Department for the additional curb cut along W. Lake Cook Road. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Cavanaugh made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Ms. Roth-Wurster DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Cavanaugh stated it meets the standards. He stated it is safer for the petitioner to have ability to pull out on Lake Cook Road, which is a unique circumstance. He pointed out in addition they will pave everything, which will make the property look better Ms. Roth-Wurster spoke to the standards including reasonable return and safety. She stated in this area this request meets the standards. VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 6 Packet Pg. 7 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 5-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 20, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner SECONDER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Cavanaugh, Pirog ABSENT: Larson, McGinn Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 7 Packet Pg. 8 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 3. 60 W Illinois Avenue - Recommended to Approve Notice was published in the Daily Herald on May 30, 2022 and mailed to the owners of the surrounding properties. Petitioner's Exhibits: 1. Application for Special Use 2. Proof of Ownership 3. Plat of Survey 4. Business Plan 5. Floor Plan Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) 6. Public Notice Sworn in petitioner: Ms. Mariann Leahy Ms. Leahy stated she previously occupied this location for 13 years before relocating to 271 E. Helen Rd. She is now asking to move back to location which has been vacant since she left. She pointed out she previously met the standards before and it will be better for the property to have tenants. Ms. Leahy stated they are no longer doing x-rays and never had parking issues. She stated the floor plan will remain the same as 2001 and will just need to update with flooring and modernization. Ms. Bremanis gave a brief overview stating the property is zoned B-2 general business which requires a special use for medical use. She stated the tenant space is approximately 2250sf with the hours of operation being 8am-12pm and 2-7pm. She spoke the business plan indicating approximately 3 patients per hour and 1 staff. Ms. Bremanis stated the parking requirements has not changed, so additional parking relief is not required. She stated Community Services and Fire Prevention have reviewed and had no issues. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed medical office will occupy a vacant tenant space previously occupied by the proposed tenant. The parking requirements do not change for this use and the Petitioner previously occupied the space with no issue. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use subject to the following condition: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the floor plan and the business plan submitted by the Petitioner on 5/11/22, except as such plan may be changed to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. There were no further questions. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Luszczak made a motion to approve subject staff’s conditions; seconded by Mr. Cavanaugh VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 8 Packet Pg. 9 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 DELIBERATIONS: Mr. Luszczak pointed out they were there before with no problems and there are no changes Ms. Wood stated this is the easiest request since their current and previous operations meets the standards and had no parking or any other issues. Ms. Wood summarized that this request has met the standards and was unanimously approved by a vote of 5-0. This item will tentatively go to Village Council on June 20, 2022 RESULT: RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE [UNANIMOUS] Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) MOVER: Jerry Luszczak, Commissioner SECONDER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Cavanaugh, Pirog ABSENT: Larson, McGinn VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 9 Packet Pg. 10 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 IV. COMMUNICATIONS V. ADJOURNMENT 1. Motion to adjourn - Motion Carried by Voice Vote RESULT: MOTION CARRIED BY VOICE VOTE [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Cindy Roth-Wurster, Commissioner SECONDER: Kevin Cavanaugh, Commissioner AYES: Roth-Wurster, Wood, Luszczak, Cavanaugh, Pirog ABSENT: Larson, McGinn Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 10 Packet Pg. 11 2.1 Minutes Zoning Board of Appeals June 14, 2022 Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Jun 14, 2022 7:00 PM (Minutes Approval) VILLAGE OF PALATINE Page 11 Packet Pg. 12 3.1 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Zoning Board of Appeals SCHEDULED 06/28/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7643) 1070 N. Cardinal Drive TO: Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals Jan Wood, Chair FROM: Alex Bradshaw PETITIONER: Jacek & Marta Brzostowski CASE NUMBER: 22-21 ADDRESS: 1070 N. Cardinal Drive PROPOSAL: Special Use to permit a fence in the side yard abutting a street where the side lot line of said yard abuts the side lot line of the front yard of an adjacent lot. LOCATION: 1070 N. Cardinal Drive CURRENT ZONING: Planned Development District 4 (Solberg) SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: P - Planned Development (Single-Family Residential) South P - Planned Development (Single-Family Residential) East: P - Planned Development (Single-Family Residential) West: P - Planned Development (Single-Family Residential) BACKGROUND: The Petitioners are proposing to replace an existing fence four (4)-foot fence with a six (6)-foot solid vinyl fence in the same location, approximately ten (10) feet from the side yard lot line abutting E. Olde Virginia Road. Therefore, the Petitioners are requesting: Special Use to permit a fence in the side yard abutting a street where the side lot line of said yard abuts the side lot line of the front yard of an adjacent lot. SITE ANALYSIS:  The Subject Property is zoned P, Planned Development (Meadowlake Subdivision) and contains a single-family residence. The lot is located at the NE corner of North Cardinal Drive and East Olde Virginia Road.  The Petitioners are proposing to replace an existing, four (4) foot, open-style picket Page 1 Packet Pg. 13 3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7643) Meeting of June 28, 2022 fence in the side yard abutting the street, which abuts the front yard of their adjacent neighbor to the NW (1070 E. Olde Virginia Rd). The new proposed fence will be in the same location, but will be a six (6) foot, solid, vinyl fence.  The proposed fence will remain setback 10 feet from the side property line abutting E. Olde Virginia Rd. Although it is not required by the Zoning Ordinance, there is existing landscaping that will remain between the fence and the property line.  The proposed fence abuts the 20 foot front yard of 1070 E. Olde Virginia Rd. It appears that with the ten (10) foot setback, there will be little impact on the visibility from the driveway of the Olde Virginia Rd property.  The property across Cardinal Drive from the Subject Property, 1071 E. Cardinal, has an existing non-conforming six (6) foot solid fence that is setback approximately 13 feet from the side lot line abutting Olde Virginia Rd.  The Petitioners have received letters of consent from all four directly adjacent property owners. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: Community Services No Issues Identified. Engineering No Issues Identified. Environmental Health N/A Fire Prevention N/A Public Works N/A Police N/A STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE: Since this Petition is not for a use publicly operated or traditionally affected with the public interest, those standards under Section 14.05 D (2) and (3) are applicable. Specifically, the Petitioners must show that the Special Use, if granted, is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will be protected and will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. The Petitioners have attempted to address the required standards. (5) With respect to front yard fencing and fencing in a rear yard/side yard abutting a street, he following additional standards must be met: a. Will meet the following aesthetic criteria: i. Will not destroy existing vistas in the area; ii. Will enhance the appearance of the homes and the streets in the area; and iii. Will not detract from the overall appearance of the community; or b. The fencing is found to be necessary to protect private property or the safety Page 2 Packet Pg. 14 3.1 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7643) Meeting of June 28, 2022 of the inhabitants of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are proposing to replace an existing 4-foot open style fence with a 6-foot solid fence. The proposed fence will be in the exact location as the existing fence, which is set back approximately 10 feet from the side property line that abuts Olde Virginia Road. Said property line also abuts the side lot line of the front yard of the adjacent lot to the north. Per Code, the required setback is 20 feet. The Petitioner has received letters of consent from all four directly adjacent property owners, including 1070 E. Olde Virginia Rd (directly north). The existing landscaping between the existing fence and the side lot line abutting the street will remain to provide an effective buffer. Ultimately, Staff did not identify any negative impacts the proposed fence would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed Special Use with the following condition: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the site plan and elevation plan submitted by the Petitioners, Jacek and Marta Brzostowski, except as said plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS:  Aerial Map  Application  Plat of Survey - Site Plan  Existing Conditions  Fence Elevation (SAMPLE)  Neighbor Consent Forms  Public Notice Page 3 Packet Pg. 15 3.1.a 1070 N. Cardinal Drive 1055 E EM E AD OW LAK 1061 E ED R 1067 E 1073 E 1079 E 1088 N 1062 E 1066 E Attachment: Aerial Map (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 1082 N 1070 E 1076 N 1070 N 1083 N E DR O L NA 1067 E E LD I RD CA VI R 1077 N NI N GI A RD 1071 E 1071 N 1110 E 1045 E 1065 N 1057 N R 0 50 100 1 in. = 51 ft. Feet 1096 N Packet Pg. 16 3.1.b Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: Application (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.b Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: Application (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.c Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: Plat of Survey - Site Plan (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.d Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: Existing Conditions (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.e Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: Fence Elevation (SAMPLE) (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.f Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: Neighbor Consent Forms (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.f Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: Neighbor Consent Forms (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.f Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: Neighbor Consent Forms (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.f Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: Neighbor Consent Forms (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.1.g Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: Public Notice (1070 N. Cardinal Drive - SU Fence) 3.2 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Zoning Board of Appeals SCHEDULED 06/28/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7628) 433 N. Stark Drive TO: Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals Jan Wood, Chair FROM: Alex Bradshaw PETITIONER: Amanda & Jeremy Hall CASE NUMBER: 22-16 ADDRESS: 433 N. Stark Drive PROPOSAL: Special Use to permit a fence in the required front yard. LOCATION: 433 N. Stark Drive CURRENT ZONING: R-2 Single Family District 4 (Solberg) SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: R-2 Single Family Residential South R-2 Single Family Residential East: R-2 Single Family Residential West: R-2 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The Petitioners are proposing to construct a new, four (4) foot open-style picket fence in their required front yard. The proposed fence will be set back approximately three (3) feet from the property line abutting N. Stark Drive. Therefore, the Petitioners are requesting: Special Use to permit a fence in the required front yard. SITE ANALYSIS:  The Subject Property is zoned R-2, Single Family (Willow Wood Subdivision) and contains a single-family residence. The lot is approximately 10,000 square feet and is located at the NW corner of N. Stark Drive and E. Wilton Court.  The Petitioners are proposing to erect a new, four (4) foot open-style picket fence in the front yard abutting N. Stark Drive. The new fence will enclose a portion of the required front and interior side yard. The portion of the proposed fence abutting N. Page 1 Packet Pg. 27 3.2 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7628) Meeting of June 28, 2022 Stark Drive will be approximately 50 feet in length, and will extend back to connect with the SW corner of the residence.  Per the submitted Site Plan, along the interior side lot line the proposed fence will transition from the four (4) foot open-style picket fence to a six (6) foot solid fence, 20 feet from the front lot line abutting N. Stark Drive.  The proposed fence will be setback three (3) feet from the front property line abutting North Stark Drive. Landscaping (plants and/or shrubs), although not required, is planned between the proposed fence and property line.  The proposed fence abuts the 30 foot front yard of 441 N. Stark Drive. The Petitioners are aware of front yard line of sight impact questions raised by Staff (for the portion of the 6-foot fence), and have presented consent from the adjacent neighbor at 441 N. Stark Drive. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: Community Services A portion of the proposed fence in the front yard is a six (6)- foot solid fence, thus posing a line of sight concern for the adjacent neighbor to the north. Engineering No Issues Identified. Environmental Health N/A Fire Prevention N/A Public Works N/A Police N/A STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE: Since this Petition is not for a use publicly operated or traditionally affected with the public interest, those standards under Section 14.05 D (2) and (3) are applicable. Specifically, the Petitioners must show that the Special Use, if granted, is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will be protected and will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. The Petitioners have attempted to address the required standards. (5) With respect to front yard fencing and fencing in a rear yard/side yard abutting a street, he following additional standards must be met: a. Will meet the following aesthetic criteria: i. Will not destroy existing vistas in the area; ii. Will enhance the appearance of the homes and the streets in the area; and iii. Will not detract from the overall appearance of the community; or Page 2 Packet Pg. 28 3.2 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7628) Meeting of June 28, 2022 b. The fencing is found to be necessary to protect private property or the safety of the inhabitants of the property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are proposing to construct a 4-foot open style fence in the required front yard of the Subject Property. The proposed fence will be set back approximately three (3) feet from the required front property line that abuts N. Stark Drive. Said property line also abuts the side lot line of the front yard of the adjacent lot to the north. Per Code, the required setback is 30 feet. Although it is not required, the Petitioner has proposed landscaping between the existing fence and the front lot line abutting the street, which will provide an effective buffer. Staff identified a potential line of sight question for the property directly to the north (441 N. Stark Drive), abutting the required front side yard of the Subject Property. If the proposed fence plan were amended to maintain a 4-foot fence through the entire front yard (30 feet), Staff would have recommended approval. Staff did not identify any other negative impacts the proposed fence would have on the overall appearance of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends Action at the discretion of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Special Use. If the Special Use is approved, Staff recommends the following condition: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the site plan and elevation plan submitted by the Petitioners, Amanda and Jeremy Hall, except as said plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS:  Aerial Map  Application  Plat of Survey  Site Plan  Fence Elevation (SAMPLE)  Letter of Consent - 441 N. Stark Drive  Public Notice Page 3 Packet Pg. 29 3.2.a 433 N. Stark Drive 465 N 635 E 643 E 651 E N STARK DR 457 N Attachment: Aerial Map (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 640 E 451 N 634 E 441 N 647 E 448 N 433 N CT W ILTO N 643 E E 442 N 634 E 436 N 640 E 648 E 430 N E STA RK DR 635 E 411 N R 641 E 0 75 150 361 N 1 in. = 68 ft. Feet 647 E Packet Pg. 30 3.2.b Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: Application (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.2.b Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: Application (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.2.c Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Plat of Survey (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.2.d Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Site Plan (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.2.e Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Fence Elevation (SAMPLE) (433 N. Stark Drive - SU 441 N. Stark Drive 3.2.f Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Letter of Consent - 441 N. Stark Drive (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.2.g Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Public Notice (433 N. Stark Drive - SU Fence in Front Yard) 3.3 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Zoning Board of Appeals SCHEDULED 06/28/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7670) 32 S. Kerwood Street TO: Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals Jan Wood, Chair FROM: Alex Bradshaw PETITIONER: Dona Martin / John Pancorvo (agent) CASE NUMBER: 22-23 ADDRESS: 32 S. Kerwood Street PROPOSAL: Variation to permit lot coverage to be 54%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. LOCATION: 32 S. Kerwood Street CURRENT ZONING: R-2 Single-Family District 6 (Helms) Residential SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: R-2 Single-Family Residential South R-2 Single-Family Residential East: R-2 Single-Family Residential West: R-2 Single-Family Residential BACKGROUND: The Petitioner is proposing to replace an existing crushed-gravel patio with a concrete patio in the rear yard of the Subject Property. The proposed patio will add approximately 331 square feet to the total existing lot coverage, bringing the total lot coverage from 48% up to approximately 54%. Therefore, the Petitioner is requesting: Variation to permit lot coverage to be 54%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. SITE ANALYSIS:  The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family. The property is located within the Prairie View Addition To Palatine Subdivision and the lot is approximately 6,650 square feet. It was annexed into the Village in 1869 and the existing lot size is non- conforming in lot area and 26% smaller than the current minimum required 9,000 square feet. The surrounding lots in this subdivision are comparably sized, and most of the homes have rear yard patio areas. Page 1 Packet Pg. 38 3.3 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7670) Meeting of June 28, 2022  In addition to the home, the property contains a 490 sf detached garage. The existing lot coverage is approximately 48% (3,200 sf) which exceeds the maximum 45% lot coverage by 207 sf.  The Petitioner is proposing to replace the existing crushed gravel patio in the rear yard of Subject Property, with a concrete patio that is smaller than the existing gravel area. The new patio will add approximately 331 sf to the total existing lot coverage, bringing the total proposed lot coverage to approximately 54% (3,531 sf).  The Code requires a standard Variation to permit an increase in the lot coverage to 54% (3,531 sf) instead of the maximum 45% (2,993 sf), being a difference of 538 sf.  Per the submitted application, the Petitioner indicates that there is justification for relief, due to the existing gravel patio not being suitable to the homeowner considering her age and health conditions.  The existing building coverage is within the 35% allowed by Code. The proposed patio complies with the required setbacks for a permitted obstruction. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: Community Services No Issues Identified. Engineering All excavated material must be removed off site. Environmental Health N/A Fire Prevention N/A Public Works N/A Police N/A STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: Standards for a Variation are found in Section 14.03 D (1) and (2) of the Zoning Code. Specifically, the Petitioners must show that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located; that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and that the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Petition for Variation is attached, and the Petitioners have attempted to address the required standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioner is proposing to construct a new concrete patio to replace an existing crushed gravel patio. Staff agrees that a concrete patio would be significantly safer more accessible than the crushed gravel. The Subject Property is smaller than standard R-2 Zoned residential properties, and the proposed patio has a smaller overall footprint than the existing. With that said, Staff has not identified any potential negative impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Variation, subject to the following conditions: Page 2 Packet Pg. 39 3.3 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7670) Meeting of June 28, 2022 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioner’s agent, John Pancorvo, except as such plans may be changed to conform to Villages Codes and Ordinances. 2. All excavated material must be removed off site in a matter acceptable to the Village Engineer. ATTACHMENTS:  Aerial Map  Application  Plat of Survey - Site Plan  Public Notice Page 3 Packet Pg. 40 3.3.a 32 S. Kerwood Street 15 S 16 S 15 S 21 S 22 S 19 S 23 S 30 S 29 S Attachment: Aerial Map (32 S. Kerwood Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 25 S 32 S 31 S 35 S 38 S 35 S S KERWOOD ST 41 S 42 S 41 S 45 S 46 S 45 S 51 S 52 S 51 S 55 S 56 S 55 S R 0 50 100 1 in. = 51 ft. Feet E GLENCOE ST Packet Pg. 41 3.3.b Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Application (32 S. Kerwood Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.3.b Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: Application (32 S. Kerwood Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.3.c Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: Plat of Survey - Site Plan (32 S. Kerwood Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.3.d Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: Public Notice (32 S. Kerwood Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Zoning Board of Appeals SCHEDULED 06/28/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7644) 110 N. Benton Street TO: Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals Jan Wood, Chair FROM: Alex Bradshaw PETITIONER: Randy & Rebecca Poznan / Danielle Scaccia (architect) CASE NUMBER: 22-20 ADDRESS: 110 N. Benton Street PROPOSAL: Standard Variation to permit lot coverage to be 58%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. LOCATION: 110 N. Benton Street CURRENT ZONING: R-2 Single-Family District 6 (Helms) Residential SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: R-2 Single-Family Residential South R-2 Single-Family Residential East: R-2 Single-Family Residential West: R-2 Single-Family Residential BACKGROUND: The Petitioners are proposing to replace and reconfigure an existing deck off the rear of the residence. A Variation was previously granted to allow the existing deck to exceed the current maximum lot coverage by 11%. The proposed deck will add approximately 20 square feet to the total lot coverage, and will maintain the existing setbacks. Therefore, the Petitioners are requesting: Variation to permit the lot coverage to be 58%, instead of the maximum permitted 45%. SITE ANALYSIS:  The Subject Property is zoned R-2 Single Family. The property is located within the Territory Included in the Town of Palatine Subdivision and is substandard at approximately 4,356 square feet in size. It was annexed into the Village in 1869. Page 1 Packet Pg. 46 3.4 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7644) Meeting of June 28, 2022  In addition to the home, the property contains a 498 sf detached garage, an approximately 35 sf shed, and an approximately 220 sf existing deck. The existing lot coverage is approximately 57% (2,499 sf) which exceeds the maximum 45% lot coverage by 540 sf.  The Petitioner is proposing to replace and reconfigure the deck of the rear of the home which will add approximately 20 sf to the overall lot coverage. The deck was originally granted setback relief in 1996 to permit a 5.1-foot setback from the rear lot line (O-203-96), per the submitted Site Plan this setback will be maintained.  The Petitioner is seeking a Standard Variation to permit an increase in the lot coverage to 58% lot coverage (2,527 sf) instead of the maximum 45% (1,960 sf) being a difference of 567 sf.  The existing building coverage is approximately 35% and meets Code. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: Community Services No Issues Identified. Engineering No Issues Identified. Environmental Health N/A Fire Prevention N/A Public Works N/A Police N/A STANDARDS FOR A VARIATION: Standards for a Variation are found in Section 14.03 D (1) and (2) of the Zoning Code. Specifically, the Petitioners must show that the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located; that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; and that the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Petition for Variation is attached, and the Petitioners have attempted to address the required standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Petitioners are requesting to replace and reconfigure the existing deck off the rear of their home. At 57%, the property currently exceeds the maximum lot coverage (45%) as the existing deck received a Variation in 1996 for setback relief, and was approved prior to lot coverage regulations. As the proposed deck will maintain the previously granted setback, Staff believes it will not alter the essential character of the area. The proposed deck will further increase the overall lot coverage that already exceeds the maximum permitted. The Village Engineer did not identify any storm water management issues with the Subject Property. However, the Subject Property size is Page 2 Packet Pg. 47 3.4 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7644) Meeting of June 28, 2022 substandard and creates a hardship for the homeowner, restricting improvements to the lot. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the requested Variation, subject to the following condition: 1. The Variation shall substantially conform to the site plan submitted by the Petitioners, Randy & Rebecca Poznan on 5/19/2022, except as such plans may be changed to conform to the Village’s Codes and Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS:  Aerial  Application  Plat of Survey  Site Plan  Elevations  Public Notice Page 3 Packet Pg. 48 3.4.a 11 0 N . B en t on St re et 132 N E WOOD ST 55 E Attachment: Aerial (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 43 E N BENTON ST 116 N 117 N 110 N 44 E 50 E 104 N 103 N E WILSON ST 61 N 58 N 55 N R 0 50 100 1 in. = 51 ft. Feet Packet Pg. 49 3.4.b Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: Application (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.b Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: Application (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.c Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: Plat of Survey (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.d Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: Site Plan (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.e Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: Elevations (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.e Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Elevations (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.e Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: Elevations (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.e Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Elevations (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.4.f Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Public Notice (110 N. Benton Street - VAR Lot Coverage) 3.5 VILLAGE OF PALATINE Zoning Board of Appeals SCHEDULED 06/28/22 07:00 PM CASE STAFF STATEMENT (ID # 7715) 619 E. Dundee Road TO: Palatine Zoning Board of Appeals Jan Wood, Chair FROM: Lyn Bremanis PETITIONER: Alton Klein, Project Manager Kids Empire CASE NUMBER: 22-17 ADDRESS: 619 E Dundee Road PROPOSAL: Special Use to permit an indoor sports and recreational facilities pursuant to Section 11.03 (d) (17) of the Palatine Zoning Ordinance. LOCATION: 619 E Dundee Road CURRENT ZONING: Planned Development - Shopping Center SURROUNDING CONDITIONS: North: R-2 Single Family Residential South Planned Development - Townhomes East: Planned Development - Shopping Center West: Planned Development - Shopping Center BACKGROUND: The petitioners are proposing to open an indoor play center under the franchise “Kid's Empire”. Therefore, they are requesting:  Special Use to permit an indoor sports and recreation facility SITE ANALYSIS:  Kids Empire is an Indoor Playground chain, with multiple location across the country, and currently have 4 locations in the Chicago area. The Subject Property is zoned Planned Development, Deer Grove Centre, which follows the B-2 use list.  The tenant space is approximately 10,584 square feet and is currently vacant. It is located between Hobby Lobby and Petco in the Deer Grove Centre. Page 1 Packet Pg. 59 3.5 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7715) Meeting of June 28, 2022  The proposed hours of operation are below, with peak hours occurring Monday - Friday 4 PM - 8 PM and Saturday and Sundays 2 PM - 6 PM: o Monday - Thursday 10 AM - 8 PM o Friday - Sunday 10 AM - 10 PM  The business plan indicates that there are 5-7 employees per shift, with an average occupancy of 142 guests and an approximate parent/child ratio of 90 parents and 52 children.  Pre-packaged food will be available for purchase on site and will offer catering of pizzas and cakes for parties.  This area in front of this section of the shopping plaza current has 394 parking spaces. Including the proposed use, 371 parking spaces are required. Therefore, the parking lot is over parked by 23 spaces. DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS: Community Services No issues Identified Engineering N/A Environmental Health No issues Identified Fire Prevention No issues Identified Public Works N/A Police N/A STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL USE: Since this Petition is not for a use publicly operated or traditionally affected with the public interest, those standards under Section 14.05 D (2) and (3) are applicable. Specifically, the Petitioners must show that the Special Use, if granted, is so designed, located, and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety, and welfare will be protected and will not cause substantial injury to the value of other property in the neighborhood in which it is located. The Petitioners have attempted to address the required standards. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The proposed business is occupying a vacant space in the Deer Grove Shopping Center. This use is compatible with the other retail, service, and restaurant uses that presently occupy the shopping center. The proposed use should not alter the essential character of the locality. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the Special Use, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Special Use shall substantially conform to the floor plan and business plan prepared by the petitioner dated 04/30/2022, except such plans may be changed Page 2 Packet Pg. 60 3.5 Case Staff Statement (ID # 7715) Meeting of June 28, 2022 to conform to Village Codes and Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS:  Aerial Map  Application  Plat of Survey  Business Plan  Floor Plan  Elevation  Public Notice Page 3 Packet Pg. 61 3.5.a 619 E Dundee Road N LEE CT R N N N DI A N ND LN LY RA LL Y NE D DA LI E DIANE DR RD E DR E CAPRI DR Attachment: Aerial Map (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) AV I SE EN ND E DUNDEE RD N WATERBURY CIR E THORNHILL LN N ROHLWING RD N LARKSPUR LN E HOME AV N MILL CT E AMHERST ST N LINDEN AV E KNOX ST ED EL E LENOX LN GA DO R DR 0 425 850 1 in. = 373 ft. Feet E PRINCETON ST Packet Pg. 62 3.5.b Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Application (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.b Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Application (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.c Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Plat of Survey (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.c Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Plat of Survey (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Lyn Bremanis, Planner Planning & Zoning Department 200 E. Wood Street Palatine, IL 60067 April 30, 2022 RE: Special Use - Business plan for Kids Empire Mrs. Bremanis, Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) Kids Empire formally requests the Village of Palatine, IL Planning Commission’s consideration for a Special Use Request to allow us to build out and operate a Kids Empire indoor playground. We are proposing to build out and operate within the approx. 10,584 gross S.F. space located at 627 Dundee Road #A- 300, Palatine, IL. Kids Empire is an indoor playground for children 12 years old and under. We have a large two-story playground and a smaller “toddler” playground for toddlers and infants. All children must be accompanied by a parent or guardian as we do not accept or allow drop offs, not even for reserved birthday parties or other group events like girl scouts events, etc. We are not a day care and we do not prepare or cook any food on the premises. Kids Empire sells pre-packaged foods like chips, candy, cookies, and bottled drinks such as water, juice, and soda. Pizza and cakes are an “on demand” option for reserved birthday parties only. Our Operations team will contract with a local caterer or baker, and pizzeria. Pizza and cakes are not stored on premises and are only brought in at the time of the parties, thus we do not have a need to heat or cool these items. All plates, cups, and utensils are single use so there is no need for a 3-comp sink or other ware washing equipment. Leftovers are either given to party goers or thrown away after the party. Our Hours of Operations are Monday through Thursday from 10am to 8pm and Friday through Sunday from 10am to 10pm and we staff 5 to 7 employees during our busiest peak shifts. Our peak hours on Monday’s thru Friday’s are 4pm to 8pm and Saturday’s and Sunday’s are from 2pm to 6pm. Our average occupancy is approx. 142 guests per day with an approx. parent/child ratio of 90 parents and 52 children. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best Regards, Alton MAlton KleinM. Dir. of Dir. Design of and Entitlements Design and Entitle 714-292-2491 620 arrow Highway • Laverne, CA 91750 • www.kidsempire.us Packet Pg. 67 3.5.d Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.d Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Business Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.e Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Floor Plan (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) REVIEW 3.5.f Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Elevation (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place) 3.5.g Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Public Notice (619 E Dundee Road - SU indoor play place)