Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/22/2007 P&Z minutes 05-07 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-07 Hearing Date: February 22, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 12 N. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Sandra DeLegge PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-34-411-028-0000 & 03-34-411-025-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Bob Flubacker Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2007 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek stated she did not have any corrections to the minutes, but she wanted to make the Commissioners aware that the Village Board struck the Planning and Zoning Commission's condition of no over-night parking for Case Number PZ-01- 07 from the ordinance (approval) due to enforcement concerns. The minutes were approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue Case PZ-30-06 to the March 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ-04-07, a request for a Variation at 12 N. Maple Street at 7:42 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Maple Street, between Henry Street and Central Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 District to the south and the RA Single Family District to the north, west, and east. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape, but consists of two lots of record. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's exhibits illustrate the proposed improvements to the existing home, which include an addition to the rear of the house and expanding the second story to accommodate a Master Bedroom and an additional bedroom. Also, the parking pad that is adjacent to the existing I-car garage would be removed and a 2-car garage would be constructed in the same general location. In order to accommodate a second car, the proposed garage would encroach 1.5 feet into the required side yard. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 5-foot side yard along the south lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6.5-foot side yard. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-05-07 Page 2 Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The site consists of two lots of record, which will need to be consolidated, the parking pad is located in a required side yard, and the I-car garage encroaches 6 inches into the front setback. The garage and the parking pad are legal nonconforming structures that are allowed to remain and be repaired and maintained. Although the proposed 2- car garage would have the same side yard setback as the parking pad, the nonconforming side yard setback is not transferable to the new garage. Ms. Connolly said the existing garage currently does not have living space above it and it is a slab on grade design. The proposed 2-car garage needs to be rebuilt due to structural requirements and will be shifted back to comply with the 30-foot front yard setback requirement. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements indicating that site would be well below the lot coverage limitation and the only relief needed would be for the south side yard setback. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance relating to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6.5-foot interior side yard for the proposed garage. In this case, the existing nonconforming setback for the parking pad is not applicable to the new garage and the 5- foot setback cannot be maintained unless a Variation is granted. However, since the proposed garage needs to be rebuilt, it will be designed to comply with the-30 foot front yard setback requirement, and will not encroach into the front yard like the existing garage currently encroaches. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner stated in their application that the 1.5-foot encroachment is necessary to construct a 2-car garage. The Petitioner explored whether the garage could be built with a 6.5-foot setback, but found the 1.5-foot difference would make it difficult to negotiate exiting/entering a vehicle when a second vehicle was parked in the garage. Therefore, the proposed garage was designed to have the smallest footprint and still accommodate a second vehicle without significant modification to the existing house. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is bordered by the RA District on three sides. The minimum side yard setback in the RA District is 5 feet, which is consistent with the Petitioner's request and the minimum setback required for a detached garage for a lot wider than 55 feet. The Petitioner has the option of constructing a detached 2-car garage, but decided not to pursue that design as the attached garage is preferred. Ms. Connolly said the possibility of rezoning the Subject Property from R1 to RA was discussed. The RA District calls for a minimum lot width of 50 feet and allows no less than a 5-foot interior side yard; the R1 District calls for a 65-foot minimum lot width and bases the interior side yard on the lot width. However, Staff could not support rezoning the Subject Property as the size and general development of the Subject Property is more in keeping with the R1 District than the RA District. Ms. Connolly showed an exhibit that depicted the location of the RA and R1 properties in the Petitioner's neighborhood. She said that while it is unusual to have an isolated pocket of a zoning district, the exhibit illustrates that the lot sizes that are zoned RI would be uncharacteristic if rezoned to RA. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed encroachment may not be perceived as meeting the definition of a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the request is based on the garage being large enough to accommodate two vehicles and being able to maneuver inside the garage. This could be interpreted as a convenience. However, the Building Commissioner confirmed that significant structural modification would be necessary to shift the existing house so the 2-car garage would meet the required setback. Therefore, the design of the existing structure limits the Petitioner's ability to comply with the required setback due to the physical Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-05-07 Page 3 modifications necessary to modify the house to comply with current zoning regulations. These circumstances create a hardship. Ms. Connolly stated that the Variation request for a 5-foot interior side yard meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 5-foot side yard setback along a portion of the south lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Robert Flubacker Architects Limited, dated February 1, 2007 for the residence at 12 North Maple Street, Case Number PZ-05-07." Ms. Connolly said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the V ariation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if a detached garage would be allowed with a 5-foot setback; Ms. Connolly confirmed a 5' setback would be permitted. Joseph Donnelly asked if the property immediately north of the Subject property has a 5-foot setback. Ms. Connolly stated it is zoned RA and a 5' setback is permitted per the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Juracek swore in the project architect Bob Flubacker, 1835 Rohling Road, Rolling Meadows, Illinois. He thanked Staff for their thorough presentation. Mr. Flubacker gave a brief history of the project and stated that the attached garage configuration was chosen to preserve large trees on the property. Richard Rogers asked what the width of the garage is; Mr. Flubacker said the garage is 21.5 feet on the inside. There was discussion on garage sizes and minimum space requirements. Mr. Rogers stated that in most cases he would support the Petitioner complying with the Zoning Ordinance regulations and have the required 6.5' setback. However, since the property is surrounded by properties in the RA district with 5-foot side yards, he supports the Variation request because the setback is in character with the adjacent properties. Chairperson Juracek called for additional questions. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-05-07 for a Variation at 12 North Maple Street, as presented by Staff. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing one additional case and discussion the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9: 15 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ-05-07 12 N Maple.doc