Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2001 ZBA minutes 2-01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-02-2001 Hearing Date: January 25, 2001 PETITIONER: Frank and Anna Panzarino SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2105 W. Prendergast PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to construct an enclosed structure in the rear yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Etfmger Leo Floras Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Frank and Anna Panzarino Anthony Kies Phil Cinantino Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting were approved~ The Zoning Board heard Case ZBA-01-01 and at 8:25, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case ZBA-02-2001, a Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She described the subject property as an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street that abuts St. Cecilia Church. The attached garage is set back 30' from the front lot line and the primary residence is set back almost 56' from the front lot line. Ms. Cormolly said the applicants propose to construct a 33'x15' enclosed structure attached to the rear of the existing residence, which would be used in the same manner as an enclosed 3-season room. The proposed structure will encroach 15-feet into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback and requires a Variation because the structure would be located 10-foot from the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said the plans for this project show that the enclosed structure would be located along a portion of the rear of the house and have a roof with skylights. The materials will match the existing house and include several large windows. In their application, the petitioners state that the enclosed porch is necessary because their property is adjacent to a detention pond and mosquitoes disturb them and limit the use of their yard. The petitioners feel that the proposed addition will enhance the home and not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly explaJmed that the Zoning Ordinance allows patios and decks to encroach into the rear setback 15', leaving 10' open from the rear lot line. Although the petitioners propose to maintgJm the same setbacks as a patio or deck, the intensity of the use differs because the proposed structure would be enclosed. Consequently, the bulk of the house extends into the rear yard. Ms. Connolly said that, to conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. The subject parcel is an 8,130 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-02-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 rectangular. The applicants propose to construct a 33' x 15' enclosed structure in the rear setback to provide a mosquito-free zone and allow them to use more of their property. She said that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner and that the structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. Ms. Connolly pointed out that, although the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoffmg Ordinance. She said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback for the residence at 2105 Prendergast Lane, Case No. ZBA-02-01. Ms. Juracek asked if Zoning Board members had any questions of staff. As there were none, Ms. Juracek asked if the petitioner was present and if he wanted to discuss the proposed project. Frank Panzarino, 2105 Prendergast, was sworn in and testified that he was requesting a Variation in order to enclose an existing patio. He said that his family has lived in the house for fifteen years and wants to continue living in Mount Prospect. He said that the back of his property backs up to the detention area of the St. Cecilia's Church property, which attracts mosquitoes. He said that his family is unable to sit on the patio because of the mosquitoes and they would like to enclose the area to build a 3-season room, which they could enjoy in summer. Leo Floras asked if this wasn't a 4-Season room but Mr. Panzarino responded it was a 3-Scason room. Mr. Panzarino presented photos to the Zoning Board and stated there is always water or moisture in the detention area. Mr. Floros asked if the mom would be heated and air-conditioned. Mr. Panzarino said that it would be heated and have air conditioning to allow the family to use to room all the time. Hal Ettinger asked if Mr. Panzarino's neighbors west of his property had open decks on their homes. Mr. Panzarino said they did and that the Village often sprays the area for mosquitoes. Anthony Kies, 610 S. St. Cecilia Drive, testified that he had no objections to the proposed project. He said that he has lived in the neighborhood since June of 1997 and that it is a very good, cross-cultural neighborhood. Mr. Kies stated that family is important to the area and said that he thinks the Panzarino family should be allowed to enjoy the area outside of their home, which they cannot because of the mosquito problem. He said that the enclosure would help the Panzarino family become closer, which is important to the community. ' Ms. Juracek thanked Mr. Kies for his eloquent speech on his neighbor's behalf, but said that it is difficuk to find a hardship to allow a Variation because of mosquitoes. She explained that it was the Zoning Board's purview to make a recommendation to the Village Board, who would make the final determination and At 8:40, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board. Leo Floros and Merrill Cotton said that they would support the request because they felt the mosquito problem denied the homeowner the use of his property. Other Zoning Board members pointed out that the request was more like adding another room to a house that probably already has a family room, recreation room, and dining room. Zoning Board members discussed how aesthetics contributed to establishing a specific setback and the effect on the properties if St. Cecilia constructed a fence to enclose their property. Furthermore, they discussed how the addition would put the site at the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage and limit future property owners from installing a service walk or shed. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-02-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 There was no further discussion, and Ms. Juracek asked for a roll call on the motion. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floras NAYS: Ettinger, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek Motion was denied 4-2. At 9:48 p.m., after two more cases were heard, Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned: Barbara Swiatek, Planffmg Secretary Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner