Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2005 P&Z minutes 39-05 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-39-05 Hearing Date: October 27,2005 PETITIONERS: Amy and Joseph Bush PUBLICATION DATE: October 12, 2005 REQUEST: Variation (Unenclosed porch in exterior side yard) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning futern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary INTERESTED PARTIES: Amy & Joseph Bush and Tom Lindsey Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes, as corrected, of the September 22, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-39-05, a Variation request for an unenclosed porch. She said that the case is Village Board final and the Commission will be making the recommending vote tonight. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the northwest intersection of Edward Street and Milburn Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape, but has a slightly substandard lot width of 49.98 feet when current code requires 50 feet. The existing home is currently set back approximately 30 feet from the front lot line, 4.9 feet from the side lot line, 16.98 feet from the exterior lot line, and approximately 65 feet from the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's exhibits illustrate a significant addition to the eXlstmg house. Improvements include constructing a second story addition and an unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard. A portion of the existing house already encroaches into the required exterior side yard and has a setback of 16.98 feet. This is a 'nonconformity' because current code regulations require a 20-foot setback. Portions of the proposed second story will encroach into the side yards. However, the Zoning Ordinance includes provisions that allow for nonconformities to be expanded in the side and rear yards as long as the addition follows the established setback and the lot is 55 feet or less in width. Therefore, the second story complies with current zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly reported that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot exterior side yard for new construction and the porch and unenclosed covered entryway would have a l6-foot setback and l4-foot setback respectively. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation for this part of the project. The entryway measures 12 feet across Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27,2005 PZ-39-05 Page 2 and extends 3 feet from the house. It is not a permitted encroachment because the l2-foot linear measurement exceeds the definition of a stoop, which is limited to 5 feet x 8 feet. Ms. Connolly stated that the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house encroaches into the required exterior side yard. However, the existing structure is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain in its current locations. The proposed unenclosed porch and entryway require relief from the RA District's bulk regulations for the exterior side yard setback. The project would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot exterior side yard for the house. However, the existing structure does not meet this requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct an unenclosed porch and an unenclosed entryway in the required setback, creating a l6-foot setback and a l4-foot setback respectively. Staff conducted a site inspection and found that several homes on corner lots in the vicinity of the Subject Property also encroach into the 20-foot exterior side yard. Using internal Village software, Staff found measured the existing setbacks and found that the Petitioner's request was in keeping with several existing setbacks. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is proposing to expand the existing home to create additional living space. The Petitioner explored different designs for the addition, but determined that an unenclosed porch is integral to the design and objective of unifying the addition and the existing house. However, there are challenges when a majority of the house is currently at the required 20-foot exterior setback and a portion of the house already encroaches into the exterior side yard. Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner evaluated the possibility of modifying the portion of the house that already encroaches into the exterior side yard, but determined it was cost prohibitive. fu addition, the proposed unenclosed entryway that ties the proposed 'two porches' together is necessary for a cohesive design. The unenclosed entryway's measurements, projecting 3 feet from the building and 12 linear feet across are necessary to comply with Building Code regulations and to balance aesthetics as it mirrors the size of the existing encroachment. However, it is this part of the project that triggers Village Board approval because this structure will encroach more than 25% into the required exterior side yard, resulting in a l4-foot exterior side yard. Ms. Connolly stated that, while the proposed encroachment is comparable to the existing 16.98 foot exterior side yard and other setbacks currently found in the neighborhood, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that this corner lot is typical in shape of most lots in the Village and the substandard lot width is less than one inch than the current minimum lot width requirement. Ms. Connolly said that although the Petitioner's request to have an unenclosed porch and entryway encroach into the exterior side yard may be an attractive enhancement to the house that has a minimal impact on the neighborhood, the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the motion to approve a Variation to allow a l4-foot to l6-foot exterior side yard as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 222 S. Edward Street, Case No. PZ-39-05. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked for clarification on the request: She said that the proposed porch in the exterior side yard, resulting in a l6-foot setback, requires Variation approval as well as the entryway that encroaches in the side yard, creating a l4-foot setback requires Variation approval. Ms. Connolly verified this was correct. Joseph Donnelly inquired why this case did not meet the Conditional Use criteria and needed a Variation. Ms. Connolly clarified that the proposed entry way is actually in the exterior side yard of the property and the Conditional Use is only applicable to porches in the front yard. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27, 2005 PZ-39-05 Page 3 Richard Rogers asked whether the new garage met the 20-foot setback. Ms. Connolly said that the permit was approved with a 20-foot setback, but didn't know whether a final inspection had been done. Mr. Rogers then asked for clarification that if the proposed entry way was located in the front yard, a 30-foot set back would be required versus the 20-foot set back required for the external side yard. Ms. Connolly said that was correct. Tom Lindsay of Lindsay Associates Architects, 1155 Waukegan Road, Glenview IL and Petitioners Amy and Joseph Bush, 222 S. Edward were sworn in. Mr. Lindsay introduced the Property Owners, Amy and Joseph Bush. He said that Joseph Bush is acting as the contractor for the project and will be living in this home with his family when it is complete. Mr. Lindsay said that the Staff presentation was very thorough and that it described the request very well. He added that the request has not only aesthetic purpose, but serves as an asset to the neighborhood. He said he would answer questions from the Commissioners. Chairperson Juracek questioned the drawing of two porches extending beyond the front wall of the house. She asked if this required a separate Variation, or if this request is a Variation for both setbacks. Ms. Connolly indicated that this request is for a l4-foot and l6-foot setback as shown the Petitioner's site plan. If the request does get approved, Staff wanted to ensure the entire porch could not be built with a l4-foot setback. Therefore, the request was broken down to separate the porch from the entryway. Richard Rogers asked if this plan, as drawn, is actually three porches. Mr. Lindsay verified that there are three areas of porch that will be tied together under one roof. Mr. Rogers noted that the aesthetics of the plan are a great improvement to the property. Chairperson Juracek asked if consideration had been given to putting the front door in a different place so the porch may be fully accessed by one means of entry. Mr. Lindsay indicated that the location of the front door, as drawn, is the ideal placement for the entry. Keith Youngquist asked whether the porch could be enclosed later on if the Variation request was granted. Ms. Connolly replied that the Variation can be approved with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. Mr. Lindsay said that the Petitioners have no intention of enclosing or screening in the porch. Mr. Lindsay summarized that the proposed architecture of the porch offers value to the property and the neighborhood. Chairperson Juracek added that the porch will preserve the character of the house and benefit the neighborhood. Richard Rogers again asked the Property Owner to confirm exterior side yard of the new garage. Mr. Bush said that the garage does meet the 20-foot set back requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked ifthere were any further questions. Hearing none, the hearing was closed at 7:55 pm. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the proposed unenclosed porch in the side yard as submitted by the Petitioner for the residence at 222 S. Edward Street, Case No. PZ-39-05 with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 27,2005 PZ-39-05 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:04 pm, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adj ourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Secretary C:\DOCUffit.11tS and Settmgs\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Tcmponuy Internet Files\OLK2\PZ.39-05 222 S. Edward.doc