Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/27/2005 P&Z minutes 46-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-46-04 Hearing Date: January 27,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1310 Burning Bush Lane PETITIONER: Ted Drag PUBLICATION DATE: January 12,2005 Journal & Topics PIN#: 03-25-123-003-0000 REQUEST: Variations for the size and height of a detached garage. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Ted Drag Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.rn. Richard Rogers moved to approve the revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting; and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-04, a Variation request for the size and height of a detached garage. She said that this case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Burning Bush Lane, between Cree Lane and Euclid Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R 1 District on the north, west, and south and by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the east, River Trails Park District. The Subject Property is slightly larger than the typical Rl lot and has a rectangular shape. The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage, repave the driveway, and construct an oversized detached garage. The proposed garage would comply with the zoning setbacks; however, the proposed driveway would need to be modified to comply with the code. The Zoning Ordinance limits the size of the driveway width to no more than 23' after 15' from the front elevation of the garage. In order to comply with the zoning regulations, the Petitioner would need to change the color or the material of the adjacent patio so the driveway does not exceed the 23' width limitation. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's exhibits, which illustrated that the proposed garage would measure 30'x25', which is 750 sq. ft., and would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof. She said that the Zoning Ordinance allows detached garages up to 672 sq. f1. and the height cannot exceed 12' when measured Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-04 Page 2 from the mid-point of the roof. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Variations for the height and size of the proposed oversized garage. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed garage would be constructed of white vinyl siding and have a 6:12 pitch roof. Vehicles would enter/exit the garage on the east elevation through either a 16' wide double door or a single, 10' wide single door. In addition, there would be a service door and two windows on the north elevation. The Petitioner states in his application that the oversized garage is necessary to accommodate storage needs, which include a boat. Several of the Petitioner's neighbors signed a petition stating they are not opposed to the proposed garage. The existing home does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required front yard by one inch. Also, the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. However, the Petitioner would demolish this garage and construct a garage that meets the required setbacks. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to construct an oversized garage to provide additional storage. The Petitioner states that he only has a subbasement, which does not meet his storage requirements. Also, he states that the oversized garage would allow him to store his 'yard' furniture and boat inside the garage, as opposed to parking the boat on the driveway, which is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner provided a list of oversized garages with his application. She said that five of the garages are in the Village's corporate limits. Staff researched the information provided by the Petitioner, but could not confirm the size of all the garages listed. She said that the table in the Staff Report documents that only one oversized garage received a Variation since the Zoning Ordinance was changed to allow larger detached garages (672 square feet). Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, the Variation is needed to accommodate the Petitioner's living requirements, which does not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a hardship. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has the option of adding onto the house and/or constructing a shed to store some items. However, any of these alternatives would require modifying the driveway and patio to ensure the site continued to meet lot coverage requirements. Although the requested Variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to permit a 750 square foot garage that would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof, for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly to review the e-mail from a neighbor inquiring whether adverse water run-off conditions would be created as a result of this Variation. Ms. Connolly said that she had contacted the Engineering Department to answer the resident's question. Engineering found that the Petitioner's request would not ex:ç;eed the Village's lot coverage limitations. Therefore, constructing a new garage should not adversely impact drainage. Matt Sledz asked about the Variation that had been granted since the Text Amendment that allowed larger garages hadbêen adopted. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner could have done a 10 x 12 shed, but wanted a larger garage instead of the shed. The P&Z approved the larger garage on the condition that a shed would never be built. That case was final with the P&Z. Ted Drag, 1310 Burning Bush Lane, was sworn in. He said that he has lived in his Mount Prospect home for three years. He said Ms. Connolly had covered all points of his petition very well. He said he designed the garage so his Bass boat would fit perfectly during storage time. He has hired a professional architect and builder Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-04 Page 3 and will change the color of the driveway concrete to meet zoning regulations. He described several other large size garages in the area. He said he investigated the water drainage issue, which is a problem in their area, and said he is sure he will not add to it with this garage. He also said he will not need a shed in the future if he is allowed to build this garage to these proportions. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Mr. Drag about his current storage situation. Mr. Drag said he presently keeps vehicles and his boat on the driveway. Ms. Juracek asked if any audience members wished to speak. Since nobody came forward, she closed the Public Hearing. She said a petition from the neighborhood was submitted and that it is in favor of the request. Mr. Cotten said the residents want to get vehicles and boats off the driveways. Mr. Donnelly agreed as did Mr. Floros, although he said he has mixed feelings because the Text Amendment has just been written and exceptions were already being made. Mr. Rogers said he agreed with Mr. Floros; he said he felt a line had to be drawn somewhere. Mr. Sledz also had similar comments. He thought the premise of not building a shed on the property was appealing, but a new owner might not abide by that rule. Ronald Roberts said he thought a deeper garage could store the boat without being that much larger. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation for a 750 sq. f1. detached garage that measured 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, and Juracek NAYS: Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Sledz Motion was denied 4-3. Ms. Juracek explained to Mr. Drag that he had the option to appeal the P&Z's decision to the Village Board within five calendar days and that Ms. Connolly would follow up to explain that procedure to him. After hearing four more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 11 :45 p.rn., seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary ¡ntemet Files\OLK2\PZ-46-04 I3 IO Buming Bush Lane Ted Drag.doc