HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/26/2000 ZBA minutes 34-2000 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
CASE NO. ZBA-34-2000 Hearing Date: October 26, 2000
PETITIONER: Frank and Charisse McAloon
PUBLICATION DATE: October 11, 2000 JOURNAL/TOPICS
REQUEST: Proposal for a variation to allow construction of a 6.5' X 4' stoop to encroach
into the required 30' front setback at 518 N. Emerson St.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten
Hal Ettinger
Leo Floros
Elizabeth Luxem
Keith Youngquist
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Richard Rogers
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES: Mr. & Mrs. McAloon
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to approve the
minutes of the September 14 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. Chairperson Arlene Juracek made a correction
to the minutes of the ZBA-26-2000 case. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to approve the corrected ZBA-26-2000
minutes and the minutes of the ZBA-33-2000 case, Leo Floros seconded the motion, and the minutes were
unanimously approved. At 7:39, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-34-2000, a request for a variation to allow
construction of a 6.5'X 4' stoop to encroach into the required 30' front setback.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given, and introduced the staff memorandum for the
item. The subject property is an existing single-story home located on a 50' x 152.2' single-family lot on a residential
street. The existing house has a front setback of 31.23'. The petitioners want to remove the existing 5' x 10' stoop and
steps and construct a new 6.5' x 4' stoop for aesthetic reasons. The new stoop would encroach three-feet into the front
setback. Because the size of the stoop exceeds 5'x5', which is what the Zoning Ordinance defines as a stoop, it is not a
permitted encroachment and must meet the 30-feet setback. Also, the proposed stoop does not meet the definition of
an unenclosed porch and the project requires approval of a variation instead of a conditional use. The project must
meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance instead of showing that the project would be a
benefit to the neighborhood and not have a negative impact on the neighborhood, as is required for approval of a
conditional use.
Ms. Connolly described the subject parcel as a 7,610 square foot parcel that is relatively level, out of any flood zone,
and rectangular. The proposed stoop could enhance the character of the existing single-family residential area and
would not have a negative effect on the public welfare.
Ms. Connolly reported that no particular physical condition or attribute of the lot makes the proposed encroachment
necessary. The petitioners could construct the same type of service walk, decrease the width of the stoop
proportionately (1.5'), and meet code requirements. There is not sufficient justification for a variation by the above
oning Board of Appeals ZBA-34-2000
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
standards, therefore staff recommends that the ZBA deny the proposed variation to permit a 6.5' x 4' stoop to encroach
three-feet into the required 30' front setback for the residence at 518 N. Emerson Street, Case No. ZBA-34-2000. The
ZBA's decision is final for this case.
Arlene Juracek asked why staffs report indicated 5'x10' stoop and steps and the petitioner's request indicated a 4'x6'
stoop and two steps. Ms. Connolly said the stoop and the stairs leading to the stoop were included in the 5'x10'
dimension, for a 50 s.f. total.
Ms. Juracek asked why the proposal did not qualify as a porch instead of a stoop. Ms. Connolly responded that there
was no covering and it was just a concrete slab. Mr. Blue also said until there is a cover it is effectively a stoop.
Mr. & Ms. McAloon were sworn in and said they wanted to replace their stoop with the stairs coming down from the
front of the stoop. The stoop is small and it is difficult to maintain one's balance when moving items in and/or out of
the house. Mr. McAloon said they wanted to put a railing and awning on the stoop in the future.
Discussion ensued on the differences between porches and stoops. Mr. Blue read the definition of a porch from the
Code. Ms. Juracek inferred from the Code that a stoop could have an awning and not become a porch. Hal Ettinger
said he thought it was a good idea to approach the door straight on from the steps and stoop, rather than at a 90-degree
angle.
Ms. Juracek said the Village Board has discussed some procedural changes which would allow minor variations to be
approved by staff without going before the Zoning Board and asked if this case would fall under those guidelines.
Michael Blue said the final recommendation has not been sent to the Village Board yet, but this case would not be an
example of that. Those cases would be strictly removal and replacement exactly of existing structures like a patio or
stoop that needs to be repaired and exceeds lot coverage.
Merrill Cotten pointed out this project would still afford the property less than 50% coverage and would improve the
appearance of the property.
Arlene Juracek said it would be necessary to hinge approval of the request on a legally sustainable reason which would be the
protection of public welfare, regarding the awkward mm necessary to access the porch, and the diminutive amount of the
variation. At 7:50, Ms. Juracek closed the public heating and asked for a motion on the case.
Leo Floros made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed variation to allow construction of a 6.5' X 4' stoop
to encroach into the required 30' front setback, Case No. 34-2000. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. The
Zoning Board's decision is final for this case.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS:
Motion was approved 6-0.
At 9:44 p.m., Hal Ettinger made motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice
vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner
H:\GEN\PLNG\ZBA\ZBA 2000\Mh~utes~ZBA-34-2000 518 N Emerson.doc