|
VILLAGE OF PALOS PARK
MINUTES OF THE PLAN COMMISSION MEETING
HELD ON MARCH 17, 2011
1.ROLL CALL: The meeting of Plan
Commission of the Village of Palos Park, Cook County, Illinois was
called to order at 7:30 p.m. Answering to roll call was Julie Kay, John
Basso, Marty Strubin, Michael Sundermeier, and Chairman Ralph Jones.
Michael Wall and Paul Petan were absent. Also in attendance was, Steve
Manning, Community Development Director and Sally Kinney, Secretary to
the Plan Commission.
Paul Petan arrived at 7:35 p.m.
2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Michael Sundermeier moved, seconded by Martin
Strubin, to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2011 as presented.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: -6- Sundermeier, Strubin, Petan, Kay, Basso and Chairman Jones
NAYS: -0-
ABSENT: -1-Wall
3.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Proposed amendment to Section 1264.07 of the Village Code of
Ordinances to add authority to place conditions on zoning variations.
B. Proposed amendment to Section 1264 of the village Code of Ordinances
adding hardship criteria for review of zoning variance applications.
Discussion: Chairman Jones stated that there were members of the Zoning
Board of Appeals present to add their opinions if so desired. He stated
that the Code is proposed to be amended as follows:
SECTION 2: That Part Twelve, Title Six, Chapter 1264, Section 1264.07 of
the Palos Park Village Code be amended by adding the following to the
end thereof:
“The Zoning Board of Appeals may recommend certain limited conditions on
the development subject to the variance that are necessary or
appropriate to reduce the impact or injurious effect of said variance
and to better carry out the general intent of the Village regulations.”
SECTION 3: That Part Twelve, Title Six, Chapter 1264, Section 1264.08 of
the Palos Park Village Code is amended by adding the following between
the first and second sentence of said section:
“In approving a variance, the Council may impose certain limited
conditions on the development subject to the variance, as recommended by
the Zoning Board of Appeals, or as determined by the Council, that is
necessary or appropriate to reduce the impact or injurious effect of
said variance and to better carry out the general intent of the Village
regulations.”
SECTION 2: That Part Twelve, Title Six, Chapter 1264, Section 1264.07 of
the Palos Park Village Code is amended by revising the second sentence
thereof, including subsections (a) through (e), to read in its entirety
as follows:
“In considering all proposed variances to this Zoning Code, the Board
shall, before recommending that Council grant a variance, first
determine and make a finding of fact that the proposed variance will not
merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to
alleviate practical difficulties or a demonstrable hardship in the way
of carrying out the strict letter of those regulations relating to the
use, construction, or alteration of buildings or structures or the use
of land, and that:
“(a) SITE DIFFICULTIES
There are one or more unusual physical conditions of the site, such as
size, shape, or slope, that were not created by a person having an
interest in the property, that are unavoidable or uncorrectable, or
that are worthy of preservation, such as a creek, wetland, or specimen
trees, and that make it a substantial burden to use the property or
develop the property, or otherwise result in a substantial loss of value
or cause the site to be unable to yield a reasonable return, without a
variance.
(b) DEVELOPMENT DESIGN
The variation would not merely serve the temporary social or personal
convenience of an occupant, and an alternative development plan that
would conform to Code would not be suitable for the uses permitted by
Code and would not be typical of similar properties in the area.
(c) COMMUNITY IMPACT
The variation would retain the essential character, scale, intensity,
and open space of the area, and would be in harmony with the purposes of
the zoning code as stated in Section 1260.02 of this Code, and would not
be substantially injurious to other property, or be detrimental to
public interests or adopted Village plans.”
Steve Manning said regarding conditions there was a parallel situation
for special uses. There is a provision in Code that allows the Plan
Commission to establish conditions on special uses. The Zoning Board
does not now have the capability to apply conditions to the variances
they recommend. The Zoning Board understands from experience that being
able to place conditions on variances would be very helpful in the
granting of variances.
In regard to hardship, Steve Manning said that state statute does have
some restricting language for municipalities. The term used in statute
is practical difficulties or demonstrable hardship. That language is
reflected in a lot of case law. Municipalities have the opportunity to
further define hardship criteria. The reason for setting criteria in the
Code was to guide those who are going through the process. Often times
those going through the process are not clear about what type of
hardship needed to be demonstrated in order to qualify for a variance
and what type of testimony needed to be given. Having criteria in place
will help the entire variance process.
Chairman Jones asked if the Village had a way to track what variances
were given. Steve Manning responded that conditions were written in the
ordinance and typically filed by address. When a permit was requested
the address file is checked to see if any variances were given.
Steve Manning said that the hardship language should be descriptive
enough to be useful but general due to the uniqueness of each situation.
Chairman Jones asked any Zoning Board Members in the audience about the
proposed amendment to Section 1264 of the Village Code of Ordinances
which would add hardship criteria for review of zoning variance
applications. Chairman Jones said he thought that if the owner moved
from the address and the hardship went away it was not a hardship.
Steve Maier, 8810 W. 121st Street said the Zoning Board struggled with a
lot of the language. Mr. Maier said they were trying to clarify what a
hardship was. Through his research on line it appeared that many areas
around the country were having difficulty with hardship in zoning
variance requests.
John Basso said the proposed language is still somewhat general. Steve
Manning stated that the LaSalle factors were six criteria that came out
of a lawsuit, LaSalle vs. First National Bank. The LaSalle Factors were
actually criteria that became the accepted criteria for rezoning.
Therefore they really did not fit the variance situation. There was no
one universal legal definition of hardship. John Basso stated that
criteria regarding hardships was still somewhat subjective.
Chairman Jones said the question was not should variances should be
granted. These ordinances are trying to clarify what the Zoning Board
would be looking for when hearing a variance request. Paul Petan stated
that they were guidelines or principals. Chairman Jones said it may not
be a perfect solution but it was a start.
Jack Martin, 11920 Hobart said that the majority of variance requests
before the Zoning Board were for an addition or garage. Or the house was
built before ordinances were put in place. Many times the situation was
inherited and made it difficult or impossible to improve the property.
The Plan Commission took the following action: Julie Kay moved, seconded
by Paul Petan to recommend approval of an amendment to the Zoning Code
Chapter 1264 adding the authority to place conditions on variance as
presented.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (6) Kay, Petan, Basso, Strubin, Sundermeier, Chairman Jones
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (1) Wall
The Plan
Commission took the following action: Michael Sundermeier moved,
seconded by Marty Strubin to recommend approval of an amendment to the
Zoning Code Chapter 1264 adding the hardship criteria for variances as
presented.
Upon roll call vote, the motion carried as follows:
AYES: (6) Sundermeier, Strubin, Petan, Kay, Basso, Chairman Jones
NAYS: (0)
ABSENT: (1) Wall
Chairman
Jones stated that the Plan Commission is a recommending body and that
this matter would be heard by the Village Council on Monday, April 11,
2011 at 7:30 p.m.
4.OLD BUSINESS: None
5.NEW BUSINESS: At the April 21 Plan Commission meeting there may
be two or three new items:
•A
Code Amendment to establish standards for density on multi family
units.
•Chronis subdivision. A 2.36 acre lot at 118th and Winslow.
•Bike routes—Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Chairman
Jones wanted to information regarding action that was taken on PUD units
per acre. Steve Manning said a related issue we need to address how to
handle single family houses in multi-family districts.
Public Comment
Maria Roger, 12021 S. 93rd Avenue
Mrs. Rogers wished Chairman Jones a happy birthday.
6. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further
business, Michael Sundermeier moved, seconded by Marty Strubin, to
adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Upon voice vote, the motion carried
unanimously.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
________________________
Sally A. Kinney
Secretary to the Plan Commission
|
Programs 