Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/25/2013 P&Z Minutes 11-13 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-11-13 Hearing Date: July 25, 2013 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 808 S. Elm Street PETITIONER : Steven Jarzab PUBLICATION DATE: July 10, 2013 PIN NUMBER: 08-13-110-004-0000 REQUESTS: Variation front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Tom Fitzgerald William Beattie Jacqueline Hinaber Leo Floros Sharon Ottoman MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Steven Jarzab Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Beattie made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hinaber to approve the minutes of the June 27, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting; the minutes were approved 6-0. Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ-11-13, 808 S. Elm Street and stated this case is Planning and Zoning Commission Final. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner is requesting a Variation to encroach three and one half feet (3.5’) into the required front yard to accommodate a proposed addition to their house. He stated the Subject Property consists of a single story home with related improvements. Mr. Simmons explained the Subject Property does not comply with the Village’s zoning regulations as the principal structure is setback thirty-seven and one half feet (37.5’) when the Village Code requires forty (40’). He stated the existing encroachment of the property is considered a legal non-conforming setback. Mr. Simmons stated the Petitioner is proposing to do several improvements to the property including a large addition in the rear of the home and a small addition to the front of the home. As a non-conforming structure the homeowners are allowed to add on to the structure provided that they don’t create any additional non-conformities or increase the extent of a non-conformity. Mr. Simmons showed the table below which compares the Petitioner’s proposal to the RX Single Family Residence District’s bulk requirements. RX Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 40’ 37.5’ 37.5’ Interior Side (N) 10’ or 10% of Lot Width (lesser)24.94’ 11.39’ Interior Side (S) 10’ or 10% of Lot Width (lesser) 25.5’ 14.68’ Rear 30’ 116.86’ 74.14’ LOT COVERAGE 35% Maximum 16% 30% Mr. Simmons explained the standards in order for a Variation to be approved. A summary of these standards are listed below: 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. Mr. Simmons stated that Staff reviewed the request and believes the presence of the encroachment does not provide justification for support of the Variation. Other properties within the Village have similar nonconformities which would not make this property unique. The presence of a nonconforming setback doesn’t justify a Variation. Mr. Simmons explained there are other areas within the code that would allow the petitioner to utilize the space between the two areas that are nonconforming including unenclosed porches or other types of enhancements could be made that would be permitted to encroach in the front yard, but enlarging the structure requires the Variation. Mr. Simmons stated upon Staff’s review the hardships presented in this case are directly related to the Petitioner’s own interest in the property and recommended denial of the following motion: "To approve: 1.A Variation request to decrease the required front yard setback from forty (40) feet to thirty- seven and one half feet (37.5’) for the residence located at 808 S. Elm Street, Case No. PZ-11- 13.” Chairman Donnelly called the Petitioner to the stand and swore in Steven Jarzab the homeowner at 808 S. Elm Street. Mr. Jarzab explained that he wants to make the front of the house more symmetrical by extending the wall and keeping the existing roof over the front porch. Chairman Donnelly asked the Petitioner what he plans to do with the space once it is enclosed. Mr. Jarzab stated he will use the enclosed space as a new closet; and that he wants to update the “look” of the front of the house. Commissioner Floros asked the Petitioner how long he has been at the Subject Property. Mr. Jarzab explained he just purchased the Subject Property in January in hopes of building the proposed addition. Mr. Beattie asked if the Petitioner was aware of this issue when he purchased the home. Mr. Jarzab stated he was not aware, and didn’t think it was a problem because he wants to extend the existing wall. Commissioner Hinaber asked how far the roof currently extends. Mr. Jarzab responded that the roof is at a two foot (2’) overhang all the way around the house. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any more questions for the Petitioner. Hearing none he opened the public portion of the meeting. Chairman Donnelly swore in Ernie Lassi 805 S. Elm Street. Mr. Lassi explained he lived across the street from the Petitioner and the front of his house faces front of the Petitioners home. He stated he has no objection to the proposal and is happy that people want make improvements in the neighborhood. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any further comments regarding the case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the meeting and requested a motion to accept the Variation request to decrease the required front yard setback from forty (40) feet to thirty-seven (37) feet six (6) inches for the residence located at 808 S. Elm Street. Commissioner Floros made a motion seconded by Commissioner Fitzgerald. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Fitzgerald, Beattie, Hinaber, Floros, Otteman, Donnelly NAYS: NONE The case was approved 6-0. This case is Planning and Zoning Commission Final. After hearing four (4) additional cases, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ______________________________ Jenna Moder, Community Development Administrative Assistant