53 Octo'o'X. Village of Spring G rove Plan and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda

Transcription

1 Wednesday 6:00 p.m. A 53 Octo'o'X o IS) Council Chambers 7401 Meyer Road Spring Grove, IL, Village of Spring G rove Plan and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes December 7, Reconsideration and Additional Public Hearing for 9300 Cbampi on Court - A variance to reduce tbe minimum frontage on a cul-de-sac fr 75 ft. to 36 ft. for Lot 1, 44 om ft. for Lot 2, and 60 ft. for Lot 3 in tbe proposed Williams Oak Subdivision A. Motion to reconsider variance B. Swearing in of Petitioner C. Presentation by Petitioner D. Questions by Planning & Zoning Commission E. Questions by Zoning Officer F. Public Comment G. Further Commission Discussion H. Motion to Adopt tbe Findings of Fact I. Motion of Recommendation to Village Board 5. Continuation of tbe Tentative and Final Plat for tbe Williams Oak Subdivision A. Developer Presentation B. Consultant and Staff Comments and Recommendations 1. Engineer 2. Attorney 3. Building & Zoning 4. Police Department 5. Fire Department C. Questions by tbe Planning and Zoning Commission D. Public Comment E. Further Commission Discussion F. Motion of Recommendation to tbe Village Board 6. Public Comment 7. Otber Business 8. Adjournment Posted: December 30, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.

2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION OF THE VILLAGE OF SPRING GROVE JANUARY 4, 2017 Council Chambers, Spring Grove, Illinois, ; a Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was keld tkis date at 6:04, at tke Municipal Centre, 7401 Meyer Road; p.m. Chairperson Gajewski presiding. Roll Call. Roll call vote showed tke following commissioners to he present at tke meeting: Chairperson Mike Gajewski and Commissioners Joe Broz, Sr., Mike Bukolt and Bill Green kill - 4. Absent: Commissioners Mike Lee and Paul Tierney 2. Also present for tke Village was Sandi Rusher, Village Clerk; Trent Turner, Building an d Zoning Officer; Scott Puma, Village Attorney; and Steve Bicking, Village Engineer. Approval of tke December 7, 2016 Minutes. Commissioner Broz move d, ded by secon Commissioner Greenkill to approve tke minutes as presented. On voice vote, tke motion carr ied Reconsideration and Additiona 1 Public Hearing for 9300 Champion Court A variance to reduce tbe minimum frontage on a cul-de-sac f 75 ft. to 36 ft. for Lot 1, 44 ft. for Lot 2 rom d 60 ft. for Lot 3 in tbe proposed Willia 7 Oak Subdivision. an ms Motion to reconsider variance. Commissioner Greenkill d, seconded by Commissioner Broz move to reconsider tke variance. Roll call vote: Ayes: Broz, Bukolt, Gajewski and Greenkill - 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Swearing in of Petitioner. Dave and Diane Williams, owners of tke property, were sworn commencement of tke hearing. in at tke Presentation of Petitioner. Tke Williams7 13 pi Letween Champion and Carmel own us acres Courts commonly known as 9300 Champion Court. They had previously requested tke property he sukdivided into 3 parcels an dk since witkdrawn tkeir request for a 3 lot sukdivisio ave n andkave kined Lot 2 and Lot 3 f tkei iginal plan into a single lot and are only seeking variances for com rom r or Lots 1 d 2. Lots 1 and 2 ldk ingress and egress off Champion Court from tke existing an wou ave driveway. Questions ky Planning and Zoning Commissioners. In response to questions from tke commission, tke Williams stated they changed tkeir zoning application It of tke neigkk as a resu ors on Carmel Court objecting to access off of Carme 1 Court and they want to have tke subdivision approved in a timely manner. Tk ly change on Champion Court will he lessening tke radius of tke driveway e on to make it ikle for fire department vehicles and widened enou gk for 2 more accessi. Tk change to tke Plat of Sukdivisi removing tke division line bet Lots 2 and 3. cars e omy on was ween Questions by Zoning Officer. No questions were asne ked. 9z

3 Page 2 of 5 Public Comment. Chairperson Gajewski then opened the hearing up for comments by the public. Robert Hanlon, attorney representing Rickard Kurowski wbo is an adjoining property owner an resident at 9118 Carmel Court, voiced bis client s objection to tbe application and requested tkat it be denied. He tben cross-examined tbe Willi lams as to tbe accuracy of tbe zoning application an d dment to witkdraw tbe request for Lot 3, variance standards, access to Carmel Court and wb amen ere tbey currently reside. Mr. Hanlon stated tbe Willi lams failed to provide any evidence or support tbat tbe criteria for approving tbe variance bave b satisfied. een Mr. Hanlon stated several ti tbat should tbe Williams promise not to seek access to Carmel Court mes now and in tbe future, bis client would waive bis objection. Tbe Williams responded tbey are not wiilling to make such a promise because things can change in tbe future. Mr. Hanlon tben addressed tbe commission with what be ob served as procedural violations. He described bow tbe petitioner failed to adb ere to tbe notice requirements of tbe Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, tbe petitioner did not include in its notice tbe required information and failed to list all of tbe persons tbat bave last paid taxes adjoining tbe property as reflected in Section of tbe Zoning Ordinance. He further raised an objection tbat no notice was published or mailed to tbe contiguous property owners for tonight s bearing. Attorney Puma replied tbat tbe matter ferred was re back to tbe Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) for tbe variance so no notice was required and tbat by appearing personally Mr. Kurowski and bis attorney waived any objection to notice. Additionally, at tbe last PZC meeting tbe bearing on tbe Williams Tentati d Final Plat bad ive an been continued to so no notice was necessary. Mr. Hanlon presented photos wbicb be labeled as Group Exhibit C tbat sb owed tbe sign notice on Carmel Court was not posted within 10 ft. of tbe public right-of-way. Attorney Puma inquired as to tbe source of tbe photos in Group Exhibit C because whoever took them appeared to be trespassing onto tbe Williams property. Mr. Hanl on replied be did not know tbe source of tbe photographs; tberefore no proper foundation was laid for this exhibit. Zoning Officer Turner verified tbe sig ns were posted on Champion and Carmel Court prior to tbe bearing on December 7, When be b d tbem there was no snow on tbe ground and tbey appeared closer to tbe cul-d but be onserve e-sac didn t 1 ct distance of tbe sign to tbe right-of-way on Carmel Court. Mr. Williams believed snow tbe exa tbe sig Carmel Court d as be didn t 11 it being in tbe location depicted in Group n on was move reca Exhibit C. He tben stated tbe petitioners bad taken own trees which did not comply with tbe Village s Comprehensive Land Use Plan. With respect to tbe Subdivision Control Ordin be said tbe ance petitioners did not address Appendix M, Security Requirements, Appendix W, McHenry County Stormwater Managemen t Ordinance, and tbe temporary turn aroun d at tb d of C 1 Court tbat e en arme is located on bis client s property. It was noted by Attorney Puma tbat Mr. Hanl istaken in on was m bis interpretation of several Village Code provisions which Mr. Hanlon bad in correctly referred to as requirements of tbe statute. d d 92.

4 Page 3 of 5 Mr. Hanlon reiterated tkat skould tke Williams promise not to seek access to Carmel Court now an d in tke future, kis client would waive kis okjection. Tke Williams again replied tkey are not willing to make suck a promise kecause tkings ckange in tke future. can Attorney Puma inquired if Mr. Hanlon s client sukdivided kis property witkout Village approval. Mr. Kurowski stated ke did not. He added ke purckased kis k d tken purckased vacant land from ome an tke Winn Family. Attorney Puma responded tkat tke purck f tke vacant land from a larger parcel ase o constituted as sukdivision and tkat Mr. Kurowski kad not complied witk tke Village Code wken ke kougkt it. Rick Pauli, resident at 9114 C 1 Court, kad notking furtker to add. arme Keitk Slove, renter and contract purckasers o f 9300 Ckampion Court Willi a ms. voiced support for tke In response to tke okjections raised f rom Mr. Hanlon, tke Williams tkougkt tkey addressed Mr. Kurowski s okjection prior to tke meeting k ecause tkey are not seeking access on Carmel Court. Tkey opined tkat Mr. Hanlon presented misinformation and tkey kad addresse d tke issues tkat were previously raised. Tke water runoff was addressed on tke plat tkat sk owed tke topograpky of tke land, tke temporary cul-de-sac on Carmel Court kas k ressed and states it is a temporary cul-de-sac een add tke plat. Tkey k followed all tke rules and restrictions and ky sukdividing tke property, tkey on ave Id ke allowed to put a kouse on Lot 2. Tkey acl acknowledged tkat brusk df tkeir wou was remove rom property near Carmel Court kut tkey did not remove trees. Tkey furtker stated tkey could not address rytking tkat was said ky Mr. Hanlon muck of it d to ke incorrect. eve seeme Furtker Board. Discussion. Commissioner Broz questioned kow tke revised request for variances ging to tke okjector (Mr. Kurowski) wken tke temporary cul-de-sac kas keen in ama wouid ke d existence since Motion to Adopt tke Findings of Fact. Given tke concerns of tke okjector wi itk Variance Standard #7, Attorney Puma questioned tke commission if in tkei r mind tke petitioners are receiving a special privilege skould a variance ke granted for tke reduction in minimum frontage on Ckampion Court. Tke commission agreed tkey would not. Commissioner Broz moved, secon ded ky Commissioner Bukolt to adopt tke Findings of Fact witk tke amendment to Variance Standard #7 tkat tke granting of tke variance does not confer a special privilege ordinarily denied to otker properties in tke district kecause of tke property s unique layout abutting Ckampion Court. Roll call vote: Ayes: Broz, Bukolt, Gajewski and Greenkill. Nays: None. Motion carried. secon ded k to reduce tke y Motion of Recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Bukolt moved, Commissioner Broz to d tke approval of tke granting of tke variance recommen minimum frontage on a cu1-de-sac f 75 ft. to 36 ft. for Lot 1 and 44 ft. for Lot 2 in tke proposed rom Willi s Oak Sukdivision. Roll call vote: Ayes: Broz, Bukolt, Gajewski and Greenkill. Nays: None....lam Motion carried. S2

5 Page 4 of 5 Continuation of the Tentative and. Final Plat for the Williams Oak Suhdivisi on. Developer Presentation. The Williams asked for approval of the two lot subdivision with access off of Champion Court. Lot 1 would he sold and they would huild a home on Lot 2. Consultant and Staff Comments and Recommendations. Engineer. Engineer Bicking is in the process of finalizing his review and th comments regarding septic suitable soils being delineated on the plat. ere are just a few minor Attorney. Attorney Puma stated his request to add additi lonal language relative to the private access easement for the driveway has been included the Final Plat and h ded the Plats he on e recommen approved subject to final engineering approval. Building and Zoning Officer. No comment. Police Department. No comments were received. Fire Department. Fire Chief Rich Tobiasz has previously inf d staff that they Id like to orme wou see the turning radius improved for the existing house. The Willi f their comments and lams are aware o will add this when their h is constructed ress ome on Lot 2. Questions by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The commission sou ght clarification that they have the correct plats for approval as they indicate two lots but do not have revisions dates on them. The Final Plat has a Surveyor Certificate that states it was signed on January 2, The commission requested revision dates he added to the plats. Public Comment. Chairperson Gajeivski then opened the meeting up for comme nt by the public. Robert Hanlon, attorney representing Richard Kurowski who is an a djoining property owner and resident at 9118 C armel Court, simply stated that he objected and offered no reason or testimony to support his okjection to the Plats. Further Commission Discussion. None. Motion of Recommendation to the Village Board. Commissioner Bukolt moved, seconded by Commissioner Broz to recommend approval of the Tentative Plat as reviewed and subject to the revision dates being added to the plat. Roll call vote: Ayes: Broz, Bukolt, Gajewski and G hill-4. reen Nays: None. Motion carried. Commissioner Broz moved, seconded by Commissioner Greenhill to recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to Village Engineer approval and the revision dates being added to the plat. Roll call vote: Ayes: Broz, Bukolt, Gajewski and Greenhill 4. Nays: None. Motion carried. Public Comment. Chairperson Gajeivski th en opened the meeting up for comment by the public. Robert Hanlon inquired if the meeting was being recorded and if so he requested a copy. Clerk Rusher replied the meeting was not being recorded. 52.

6 Page 5 of 5 Otker Business. None. Tkere keing no furtker kusiness, Commissioner Greenkill ded by Commissioner Broz to moved, secon adjourn tke meeting at 7:12 p.m. On voice vote, tke motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Sandi Rusker, Village Clerk