Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/23/2005 P&Z minutes 20-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-20-05 Hearing Date: June 23, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 616 Oriole Lane PETITIONER/OWNER: Kris Matters PUBLICATION DATE: June 8, 2005 PIN#: 03-27-313-012-0000 REQUEST: Variation approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard setback and other relief from the Zoning Ordinance as may be required for this project. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Kris Matters Julie Matters Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the May 26,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-18-05, a request for Variations for St. John Lutheran Church at 1100 S. Linneman Road. Leo Floros moved to continue PZ-18-05 and Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-20-05 a request for Variation approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard setback at 616 Oriole Lane. She said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Oriole Lane, between Forest and Prospect Manor Avenues, and currently contains a detached garage and driveway. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the Rl District. The Petitioner was in the process of converting a crawl space into a full basement and the contractor had just completed the excavation process when the house collapsed. Consequently, the one story house had to be demolished because it was not structurally sound. The Petitioner is now building a new house and proposes to use the already excavated area to site the new house and basement. As part of the project, the Petitioner would like to construct an unenclosed porch that would encroach 5-feet into the front setback. The proposed porch would consist of a concrete base and stone and wood columns. The proposed porch will extend approximately 5' from the house, resulting in a 25' front yard setback. The Petitioner is building a new house; therefore the unenclosed porch requires Variation approval because Conditional Use approval is only applicable to existing residences that want to construct an unenclosed porch in the front setback. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-20-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the table in the Staff report compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. She said that the proposed home requires Variation approval because the new porch would encroach 5' into the front yard. However, the detached garage that encroaches into the required side yard is allowed to remain in its current location because the Petitioner is not modifying it. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to build a new home and would like to position it over the area previously excavated for the full basement. The proposal requires the unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard. The Petitioner's Architect submitted a letter stating that shifting the house 5' so the porch meets the required 30' front setback would require filling and compacting the already excavated area. The Architect estimated the cost of the crushed gravel and other fill to range between $3,000 to $5,000. During a recent phone conversation, the Petitioner informed Staff that they had intended to build an unenclosed porch as part of the remodeling project, which was being done in phases. However, the house had to be demolished because it collapsed and the Petitioner is now building a new house. The proposed Variation request is the same as the Conditional Use the Petitioner would have sought if the house did not have to be demolished for structural reasons. In order to approve the Variation, the P&Z has to find that the request is based on a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. It is important to acknowledge that the Petitioner has experienced an unusual and extreme situation when the house collapsed, but the Petitioner is creating the need for a Variation because the porch could be located in accordance with Village Code. Although Staff can understand the reasoning for the Petitioner's request to have the porch encroach into the front yard, the Building Division confirmed there is an alternative to filling the excavated area and compacting the soil. The Building Commissioner reported that the area where the piers are to be poured would need to be filled in and compacted at one-foot intervals, which is a common practice when a building is rebuilt on an excavated site. While the proposed encroachment would be the same if the house was not demolished and an unenclosed porch was built, the fact is the Petitioner is building a new house and is required to meet the 30' setback. Therefore, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny a Variation for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for the residence at 616 Oriole Lane, Case No. PZ-20-05. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Kris Matters was sworn in. Ms. Juracek said she noted that the original plans looked as though a 2-story home had been planned for the site and could he explain what was actually proposed. Mr. Matters said Ms. Connolly had done an excellent job explaining the case. He said the contractor had excavated the crawl space to put in a basement, and, literally, in one day, his house collapsed. They want to use the existing excavation to avoid additional expense and hardship. They had planned an unenclosed porch with the original addition and want to include that porch on the new home. They have had to start with new drawings, but do want to include the same porch. He said his architect was present to answer technical questions, if necessary. Jean Reibel, Architect, was sworn in. She said that she had been hired originally to prepare a request for a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch for a remodel, but after the catastrophe, the house collapsing, she prepared a request for a Variation for a porch for the new home to be built on the foundation placed on the existing excavation. Keith Youngquist noted that the excavation would be 6' farther in the rear of the house. Mr. Matters came forward said there had been an addition on the back of the house that did not include the crawl space, so the new house itself was no larger than the old. The P&Z discussed how the Petitioner's submittal would have been almost exactly the same if the house did not collapse, and in which case the Petitioner would be seeking a Conditional Use permit. The Petitioner clarified Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-20-05 Page 3 that the previous addition was being done in phases, and that they were going to apply for the second story and rear addition after the basement was completed. At that time, they intended to apply for the unenclosed porch. Ms. Matters stated she had the original plans documenting the previous project if the P&Z wanted to review them. Ms. Juracek asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard setback as shown on the Petitioner's site plan, creating a front yard of no less than 25', Case No. PZ-20-05, 616 Oriole Lane. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing another case, Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:52 pm, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:IDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2\PZ-20-05 616 Oriole Lane.doc