Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/22/2000 ZBA minutes 16-2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS .SE NO. ZBA-16-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Bob & Kathy Grippo [104 S. Church Road PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2000 DAILYHERALD REQUEST: Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 7' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson tV[EMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED PAR'ri_uS: Bob Grippo xirperson Arlene Juraeek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. Ms. Juracek announced Case ZBA-16-2000, a request for a Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the manmum 15' rear yard setback and 7' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. Ms. Juracek stated that this case had come before the May 25 meeting but ZBA members had found it difficult to support the requested two variations. They had suggested a shorter pool with a narrower deck, set back further from the exterior side yard. ZBA members asked the petitioner to come forward at the next Zoning Board meeting with an adjusted request, and the case was tabled to this meeting: Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the amended request for Variations. She stated that the subject property is an existing single-story home on an 84' X 120' lot on a residential street and with a rear setback of approximately 40'. Ms. Connolly described the petitioner's proposal to construct a 16' X 32' pool. The revisions show that the pool will be 13' from the exterior sideyard where code requires 20', and 7' from the rear lot line where the code requires 15'. The pool will be surrounded by a 4' concrete deck in the rear yard. She pointed out that the actual encroachment into the sideyard by the pool would be 3' with the 4' deck making a 7' encroachment. Staffcontinues to find that the submittal does not support a fmding of a hardship and, therefore, recommends that the ZBA recommend to the Village Board denial of the proposed Variations to permit a pool to encroach eight (8) feet into the required 15' rear setback and seven feet (7) into the required 20' exterior side setback for the residence at 1104 Church Street, Case No. ZBA-16- . 2000. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Bob GripP° was swora in and testified that he had changed his plans and moved tl~ proposed pool 3' to the north. He Stated his contractor told him that was the best he could do without ripping out the existing patio. He said this change puts the pool within 3' of the sideyard setback. Michael Blue responded that a 3' carriage walk is a permitted encroachment in the yard. The applicant is proposing a deck, if the deck were reduced to T, it could be considered a carriage walk and that would be a permitted encroachment. Mr. Blue said the 3' of the deck itself could be in the yard.. oning Board of Appeals ZI3A- 16-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Mr. Grippo said the 4' deck could be cut down to 3' on the south side of the pool. Hc said that would put the po,.,, within Y of the 20' setback. He said he would put of'a 5' privacy fence and would not need to rip out the patio and not be too close to the back door of his house. Mr. Grippo said that he did not want to reduce the size of the pool any more, as it will be a small size, just 17,000 gallons. Arlene Juracek said she was heartened to hear that Mr. Orippo was willing to reduce the deck to Y. She said it makes the requested variation less egregious. She reminded the petitioner that, at the last meeting, the Board had not been concerned about the encroachment into the rear setback but the sideyard is really on the street and that the Board was concerned with how that would work. By shortening the deck to 3' on that end, it can be considered as just a 3' encroachment on the sideyard, which would be a significant improvement, Mr. Orippo said that there would be no diving board, and that the pool would be just 6' at the deep end. He asked if any Board members had seen the pool at 1026 Church, which is similar to what he plans to do with his area. He also said that the pool has been there for 13 years, is 6' from sidewalk, and that there have been no complaints. Leo Floros said he had gone to see the neighbor's property and could barely see the pool. Mr. Floros asked Mr. Orippo if his neighbors objected to the plan. Mr. Orippo said no, they wanted him to put in the pool. Ms. Juracek said the neighbors had two opportunities to voice any objection, as this was the second hearing of the Leo Floros made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZBA-16-2000, a Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 3' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback, with the condition that petitioner reduce the width of the deck along the sideyard from 4' to 3' Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floro$, Luxem, Youngquish and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Village Board's decision ts final in this case. At 8:15 p.m., Leo Floras made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J uo~l~ ~° ~ n °l i~,~ S~ni0 r"Pl eziner ~