AGENDA MEMO
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2010
Issue
Statement
PZC
2010-06: 7620 Wilton Court: Petitioner seeks a
variation to construct a second driveway onto an interior lot, where one driveway
is permitted.
PLAT OF SURVEY LETTERS OF OBJECTION
Discussion/Overview
At their respective
meetings, both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Municipal Services
Committee recommended denial of the variation petition. The required public hearing was held by the
Commission on April 7, 2010.
Therefore,
a draft ordinance has not been prepared.
Since
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the petition, a
favorable vote of 2/3 of the City Council is required for the variation
petition to be approved, per Section 5A-2-2-3(F)(2) of the City Code. If the City Council decides to grant the
variation, staff will prepare an ordinance to be presented to the City Council
at its next meeting.
The
full agenda memo follows as “Additional Information.”
Decision Mode
The Planning/Zoning Commission considered
this item at its meeting on April 21, 2010.
The Municipal Services Committee
considered this item at its meeting on April 26, 2010.
The City Council will consider this item
at its meeting on May 3, 2010.
Additional Information
Issue
Statement
PZC
2010-06: 7620 Wilton Court: Petitioner seeks a
variation to construct a second driveway onto an interior lot, where one driveway
is permitted.
Applicable
Regulations: Zoning Ordinance,
Section 5A-11-3(A)(1) and (3): Driveway Requirements.
General
Information
Petitioner/
Property
Owner: Ted and Diane
Schimel
Property
Location:
PIN: 09-29-411-012
Existing Zoning: R-2 Single-Family Residence
Existing Land Use: Single-family detached home
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
(surrounding the Darien Towne Centre shopping center):
North: R-2 Single-Family Residence – single-family
detached homes.
South: R-2 Single-Family Residence –
single-family detached homes.
East: R-2 Single-Family Residence – single-family
detached homes.
West: R-2 Single-Family Residence (
Comprehensive
Plan Update: Low Density Residential
Size of Property: 15,423 square feet (approximately)
Floodplain: None.
Natural Features: None.
Transportation: Property has frontage on
Documents
Submitted
This report is based on the following
information submitted to the Community Development Department by the
petitioner:
1. Plat of Survey, 1 sheet, prepared by
Webseter, McGrath & Carlson, Ltd., dated March 6, 1990.
Planning
Overview/ Discussion
The subject
property is located on the west/south side of
The petitioner
proposes to construct a detached garage and a driveway, within the rear
yard. The proposed driveway will be
located off of
In 2009, after
staff received a complaint, staff issued a violation letter to the petitioner
for parking/storing a boat on the driveway, within the front yard. The petitioner proposes to construct the
garage and driveway in order to comply with City Code. However, the Code only requires the boat be parked/stored on a hard surface within the rear yard.
The existing
driveway, off of
The Zoning
Ordinance regulates driveways. Per
Section 5A-11-3(A) of the City Code, interior lots may have two curb cuts
forming one circular driveway, under certain conditions. Staff has interpreted this to mean that
multiple, unconnected driveways on interior lots are not permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed driveway
is shown to meet the required 5-foot setback from the west lot line, as well as
being located outside of the 20-foot wide drainage and utility easement along
the west lot line.
There are two
driveways located along this section of
The petitioner
should explain alternatives considered regarding parking/storing the boat
within the rear yard, constructing a hard surface pad only vs. constructing a
garage and driveway.
The Zoning
Ordinance permits detached accessory structures within rear yards, such as
garages and sheds. The proposed garage
is 14 feet x 32 feet (448 square feet).
The proposed garage is shown to comply with required building setbacks (5
feet from side and rear lot lines, and outside of easements) and the maximum
permitted footprint area (800 square feet).
The driveway is shown to be 14 feet wide, which meets Code.
The following
City Code sections deal with recreational vehicle and driveway regulations:
5A-5-11: RECREATIONAL
VEHICLE REGULATIONS:
The storage and parking
of boats, boat trailers, mobile homes, travel
trailers, campers, off road vehicles, personal watercraft and other
recreational vehicles as defined by the
(A) Storage And Parking Of Recreational Vehicles: One recreational
vehicle, or one boat on a trailer, or one trailer with up to two (2) personal
recreational vehicles, or one trailer
may be stored outside an enclosed structure within a rear or interior side yard only, subject to the following:
1. Recreational
vehicles may be parked within a front or corner side yard, on a driveway, under
the following conditions:
(a) For loading, unloading, cleaning and related activities for a
period not exceeding three (3) consecutive days.
(b) For temporary occupancy by guests as permitted by this
section.
2. The recreational vehicle shall not be
used or occupied for living, housekeeping, or business purposes, except for use
by temporary guests not to exceed a period of fourteen (14) consecutive days
and for not more than two (2) occurrences in a calendar year.
3. The recreational vehicle shall not exceed
thirty five feet (35') in length and eight feet (8') in width except that boats
shall not exceed twenty five feet (25') in length and ten feet (10') in height,
exclusive of antennas, masts, or other accessories.
4. All
such recreational equipment must be kept in good repair and carry a current
year's license and/or registration.
5. All recreational vehicles, boats or
personal recreational vehicles on a trailer, or trailers shall be parked or stored
on an asphalt, concrete or other hard surface material which meets the setback
requirement for driveways set forth in subsection 5A-11-3(A)4
of this title. (Ord. 0-38-08, 10-6-2008)
The variation request must address the following criteria
for approval:
1. Whether the general character of the property
will be adversely altered.
2. Whether the overall value of the
property will be improved and there will not be any potential adverse effects
on the neighboring properties.
3. Whether the alleged need for the
variation has been created by any person presently
having a proprietary interest in the premises.
4. Whether the proposed variation will
impair an adequate supply of light and air in adjacent property, substantially
increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety.
5. Whether the proposed variation will
adversely alter the essential character of the neighborhood.
Staff Findings/Recommendations
The
Zoning Ordinance permits detached accessory structures within rear yards,
meeting certain conditions (minimum building setbacks, maximum lot coverage and
not to exceed 800 square feet in area.)
Thus, the variation relates to constructing a second driveway onto the
property.
The
location of a driveway along this section of
Therefore,
staff recommends the Commission make the following recommendation to grant the
variation petition:
Based upon the submitted petition and the
information presented, the request associated with PZC 20010-06 is in
conformance with the standards of the Darien City Code and, therefore, I move
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the petition as
presented.
Planning and Zoning
Commission Review – April 21, 2010
The
Planning and Zoning Commission considered this matter at their meeting on April
21, 2010. The following members were
absent: Beverly Meyer – Chairperson,
Robert Erickson, Donald Hickok, Gloria Jiskra, Ronald Kiefer, John Lind,
Raymond Mielkus, Kenneth Ritzert, Michael Griffith –
Senior Planner and Elizabeth Lahey – Secretary.
Members
absent: Susan Vonder Heide.
Michael
Griffith, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff agenda
memo. He described the requested
variation. He stated staff received
letters and petitions from residents objecting to the variation. He stated the resident who wrote the main
letter was at the meeting and should express his views to the Commission.
Ted
and Diane Schimel, the petitioners, were present. Mr. Schimel stated they bought the boat in
2003 and at that time contacted the City to find out if there were any rules
about boats. He stated their only option
to get the boat off their existing driveway is to come off of
Commissioner
Mielkus asked how they would get the boat into the garage, what type of vehicle
do they use.
Mr.
Schimel stated they have a Ford truck.
He stated they will back it up, maneuvering off of
There
was a question about the size of the boat.
Mr.
Schimel stated it was 23 feet long and about 11 feet tall.
Commissioner
Jiskra noted that residents expressed drainage concerns in their letter.
Mr.
Griffith stated the proposed garage and driveway would not create a drainage
problem. He stated
Commissioner
Erickson asked how many trees would be cut down.
Mr.
Schimel stated 2-3 trees would be removed.
He stated several of their evergreen shrubs would be removed.
Commissioner
Erickson stated line of site can be a problem on
Commissioner
Hickok stated he did not see a problem with the request other than safety.
Chairperson
Meyer asked if storage had been considered.
She stated building a garage is costly compared to storage.
Diane
Schimel stated the cost of the garage over 20 years is not that costly. She stated they go to the lake on the weekends
and storage would not work for them.
Commissioner
Ritzert asked how often the boat is taken out.
Mr.
Schimel stated once a week, usually early in the morning.
Commissioner
Lind questioned why the garage could not be located near the southeast corner
of the lot, with a driveway extended through the east side yard, or creating
another curb cut off of
Mr.
Griffith noted that in either case the driveway would not meet setback
requirements and would be located within an easement, requiring a variation.
Mr.
Schimel noted the grade in the east side yard does not work for a driveway.
Chairperson
Meyer said she visited the site, the roof overhang at
the north end of the property is low and would be an obstruction.
Kumud
Gupta,
There
was a discussion on who in the neighborhood would see the garage.
Doug
Hodak,
Without
further discussion, Commissioner Hickok made a motion to recommend denial
of the petition based on the proposed driveway creating a safety hazard on
Manning Road, seconded by Commissioner Erickson.
Upon a roll call vote, THE MOTION CARRIED by a vote of
8-0.
(Commissioner Vonder Heide was absent.)
Municipal Services
Committee Review – April 26, 2010
The
Municipal Services Committee considered this matter at its meeting on April 26,
2010. The following members were
present: Alderman Joseph Marchese –
Chairman, Alderman
Michael
Griffith, Senior Planner, briefly reviewed the staff
agenda memo. He summarized the
regulations dealing with recreational vehicles under the Zoning Ordinance,
included in the memo. He described the
petition before the Committee, noted the public hearing and the Planning and
Zoning Commission’s recommendation to deny the petition.
Mr.
Griffith confirmed that the petitioner could obtain a building permit to
construct the garage as proposed, since it complies with the Zoning
Ordinance. He confirmed that the
variation request relates to the curb cut onto
Alderman
Galan asked the petitioner how often they use their boat and the times they
generally leave and return.
Ted
and Diane Schimel, the homeowners and petitioners, stated they take their boat
out 1-2 times per week, leaving around 3 AM and returning around 1 PM.
Alderman
Schauer asked the petitioner the cost to the store the boat elsewhere and the
negatives for them to do so.
Ms.
Schimel stated storing the boat is not convenient, the
storage facility is not always open when they want access to their boat.
Alderman
Galan noted the petitions submitted objecting to the variation, stating they
have a solid point about the loss of the view and the aesthetics. He asked staff if alternatives had been
considered.
Mr.
Griffith stated staff met with the Schimels several times to discuss
options. He stated the Code does not
require a garage, only that the boat is on a hard surface. He stated putting a driveway through the east
side yard would require a variation as it would not meet applicable setbacks
and there is a grade issue. He stated
there seems to be room through the north side yard, but that means more
concrete on the lot. He stated a
driveway off of
Alderman
Schauer stated the City has been getting variation requests related to
recreational vehicles and is concerned with setting a precedent if these are
granted. He noted the Commission’s vote
was 8-0 to recommend denial of the variation.
Chairman
Marchese stated the petitioner is trying to bring the matter into compliance
with respect to their boat. He expressed
his concern over the Commission’s review.
He stated he does not have an issue with the variation.
Chairman
Marchese stated the City knew variation requests would come forward regarding
recreational vehicles when the Code was amended. He stated the Commission’s review worries him
and he cannot concur.
Alderman
Galan noted the petitions against the variation, and stated the petitioner
seems to be between a rock and a hard place.
Mr.
Schimel stated they saw several boats on driveways over the weekend and
wondered why they were singled out.
Chairman
Marchese stated the City is trying to balance the issue of recreational
vehicles. He noted that a 2/3 favorable
vote by the City Council is required for the variation to be approved due to
the Commission’s recommendation.
Pawan
Gupta,
Without
further discussion, Alderman Galan made a motion to recommend denial of
the petition, seconded by Schauer.
Upon a voice vote, THE MOTIOIN CARRIED by a vote of 2-1.
Ayes: Galan,
Schauer
Nays: Marchese