HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/28/2003 P&Z minutes 32-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-32-03
PETITIONER:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PIN #:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Hearing Date: August 28, 2003
Pat & Gail Pannozzo
August 13, 2003
902 Sumac Lane
03 -25-404-020
Variation side yard
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
None
William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development
Marisa Wameke, Neighborhood Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Pat & Gail Paunozzo
Paul Tait
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the
minutes of the July 24 meeting, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The July meeting minutes were approved 7-0. At 8:09,
Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-32-03, a request for a Variation to a side yard setback. Ms. Juracek said that the
Village Board's decision is final for this case.
William Cooney, Director of Community Development, presented the case. He said the Petitioner is seeking a
Variation to locate a shed two-feet from the interior lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a five-foot setback.
The Subject Property is located on the west side of Sumac Lane, between Kiowa and Hopi Lanes, and contains a
single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property, irregularly shaped, is zoned R1 Single
Family Residence and i s bordered by the R 1 District on all sides. The Zoning Ordinance requires that accessory
structures be located five-feet from both the side and rear lot lines for properties that measure more than 55-feet in
width at the required 30-foot front setback. While the width of the Subject Property exceeds 100-feet at the 30-foot
setback, the Petitioner would like to remove the existing shed and construct a new 8'x12' shed two-feet from the side,
north lot line. The Petitioner states that meeting the five-foot setback requirements would require locating the shed in
an area of the yard that is prone to flooding or in a location that would minimize the amount of usable yard.
The Village requires a five-foot setback in order to preserve the existing drainage patterns. This regulation is intended
to regulate changes in ground elevation, but also applies t o anything that could pose a s a potential obstruction to
stormwater flow. To assist in the review of this matter the Village's Engineering Division reviewed the topography of
the Subject Property and found that the proposed shed location would be near a high point on the property.
Stormwater runoff would drain from the shed toward both the front and rear property lines, unimpeded by the
proposed shed. The Engineering Division did not object to the Variation request, but will require that the shed be
relocated, or another form of corrective action be taken, should the proposed shed obstruct the flow of stormwater on
the Subject Property at a later date.
The Subject Property is irregularly shaped and a portion of the house encroaches into the required 25-foot rear setback.
The existing house, however, is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. The proposed shed is required to
maintain a minimum separation of three-feet from the house and five-feet from the rear and side lot lines. The
Petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the interior side yard setback to locate an accessory structure
two-feet from the lot line. The Subject Property would comply with all other zoning regulations and the shed would be
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-32-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
constructed according to Village Code.
Ordinance's requirements.
The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Zoning
The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven
specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings:
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 £mancial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and
neighborhood character.
The Petitioner is proposing to locate a shed two-feet from the interior lot line. Although the Subject Property has an
irregular shape, the proposed shed could be constructed in a location that complies with zoning regulations. The
attached Exhibit A was prepared by Staff and indicates two possible locations for the proposed shed that would: 1)
meet zoning regulations; 2) not conflict with the area that floods, according to the Petitioner's experience; and 3) allow
sufficient room between the air conditioning unit so animals could not burrow in between the shed and the unit. In
addition, the Petitioner has the option of relocating the existing fence so it is closer to the 30-foot front setback, which
Would create additional yard area and alternative locations to construct the shed.
Although the proposed shed may not necessarily create an obstruction for stormwater flow, the request does not meet
the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance because there is no apparent hardship. Also, the shed could
be constructed in locations that comply with zoning regulations. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the
Planning & Zoning Commission recommend to the Village Board denial ora Variation request to allow a two-foot side
yard setback in order to construct a shed at the residence at 902 Sumac Lane, Case No. PZ-32-03. The Village Board's
decision is final for this case.
Chairperson Juracek closed the hearing at 8:25 pm.
Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend the Village Board approve the requested Variation,not to exceed 8 x 12,
for Case No. PZ-32-03, Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 7-0.
At 9:17 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a
voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Marisa Warneke, Neighborhood Planner
William J. Cooney, AICP,
Director of Community Development
H:XPLAN~Plannlng & Zoning COMMXP&Z 2003~Minutes~PZ-32-03 902 Sumac Lane.doc