Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/24/2006 P&Z minutes 24-06 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-06 Hearing Date: August 24, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 215 South George Street PETITIONERS: Michael and Elizabeth Lorenzini PUBLICATION DATE: August 9, 2006 08-12-219-008-0000 PIN NUMBER: REQUESTS :Variations (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Mary Johnson, Alternate MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES : Michael and Elizabeth Lorenzini Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2006 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with Ronald Roberts, Keith Youngquist, and Arlene Juracek abstaining from the vote. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the September 28, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 8-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-24-06 at 7:45 p.m.; a request for a Variation to locate an attached garage in the required side yard. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the eastside of George Street, between Evergreen and Milburn Avenues, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. He said the Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. He stated that the Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and the existing home is currently set back approximately 30 feet from the west lot line, 4.9 feet from the north and south lot lines, and approximately 80 feet from the east lot line. Mr. Zawila showed exhibits illustrating the Petitioner’s proposed improvements to the existing home, which include demolishing the existing one-car attached garage and reconstructing a new one-car garage in the same general location. He said the Petitioner also proposes expanding the house to include a new mud room on the first floor and an office and storage area on the second floor. He stated that the existing garage does not currently have living space above it and it is a slab on grade design, which cannot support the proposed second story addition. Arlene Juracek, Chair PZ-24-06 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 Page 2 Mr. Zawila said the existing garage currently encroaches into the required side yard and has a 4.8-foot setback. He stated that Village Code Section 14.402.B allows the Petitioner to maintain the nonconforming 4.8-foot setback for the addition, for both the first and second floors because the lot measures less than 55 feet in width. He said the Petitioner proposes a slight increase in the footprint and the plans indicate a 3.9-foot setback for the garage and second story addition. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 3.9-foot side yard along the north lot line. Mr. Zawila said the Subject Property does not comply with the Village’s zoning regulations because the existing attached garage on the north lot line and the existing house along the south lot line both encroach into the required 5-foot side yard. He showed a table comparing the Petitioner’s proposal to the RA Single Family Residence District’s bulk requirements. Mr. Zawila stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-foot interior side yard for new construction. He said in this case, the existing nonconforming setback is permitted by code to be maintained; however, the proposed addition encroaches 10 inches into the nonconforming setback, resulting in a 3-foot, 11-inch side yard. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner states in their application that the additional encroachment is necessary to provide an easier vehicle entry into the garage. He stated that the existing garage door width measures 7-feet, 7-inches and the proposed width would be 8-feet, which is the current standard size. He stated that the Petitioner researched whether the addition could be redesigned so the front entry would be shifted, allowing the garage to meet the required setback; however, the necessary structural modifications to the existing house would be significant and the resulting front elevation could adversely impact the look of the house, depending on the viewer’s perspective. Mr. Zawila said one option, not addressed in the Petitioner’s application, is demolishing the attached garage and constructing a detached garage. He stated that Staff discussed this alternative with the Petitioner before the Petitioner submitted an application for a Variation and it was Staff’s understanding that the Petitioner preferred the attached garage, even though it was a one-car, because they wanted to maintain as much green space as possible in their back yard. He said a site inspection confirmed grade changes would be needed to construct a detached garage in the backyard. He stated that the front portion of the property, up to the patio, is higher and then the lot slopes downward; most likely to keep water away from the house and to be retained in the backyard. Mr. Zawila stated that other departments reviewed the request and did not object to the requested Variation; however, Engineering cited concerns about correctly directing down spouts and installing a service walk along side the garage. He said Engineering stated, “If the sidewalk is installed along the side of the house, nearly the entire side yard would be paved. All stormwater from this area would most likely runoff into the neighbor's yard. Consequently, we suggest not installing the sidewalk along the side of the house.” Mr. Zawila said Staff encourages the Petitioner to explore alternative designs or materials to address Engineering’s comment. Mr. Zawila said the proposed encroachment may not be perceived as meeting the definition of a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the request is based on providing an easier vehicle entry into the garage. He stated that this could be interpreted as a convenience; however, the Building Commissioner confirmed that significant structural modification would be necessary to shift the entryway so the garage would meet the required setback. Therefore, he said, the design of the existing structure limits the Petitioner’s ability to comply with the required setback due to the physical modifications necessary to modify the house to comply with current zoning regulations. He stated these circumstances create a hardship. Mr. Zawila also said the character of this type of house and other houses in this neighborhood could be adversely impacted if the existing house was modified and the garage shifted over so as to comply with the required setback. He stated that granting the requested Variation would help protect the neighborhood character. rlene Juracek, Chair PZ-24-06 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 Page 3 Mr. Zawila stated that the Variation request for a 3-foot, 11-inch interior side yard meets the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance because the style of the house and the physical modifications required to meet zoning regulations prevents the Petitioner from meeting the required approve setback for an attached garage. He said based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 3-foot, 11-inch side yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by J. Reibel, AIA, Architect, dated July 28, 2006, but revised to address Engineering’s comment concerning the service walk, for the residence at 215 S. George Street, Case Number PZ-24-06." Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission’s decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25 percent of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. There were no questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in Petitioner Michael Lorenzini, 215 S. George Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Lorenzini gave a brief synopsis of the options he explored prior to submitting this Variation application. Chairperson Juracek asked if the neighbor to the north of his property had any objections to the proposed addition. Mr. Lorenzini stated the current owner is living out-of-state, but did submit a letter indicating no objection to the project, with the condition that the new windows are off-set, as to not align directly with his windows and that a large tree be removed. A copy of the letter was provided in the Commission’s packets. Mr. Rogers asked if there is any opportunity to save the large tree in the side yard. Mr. Lorenzini stated that the tree could be trimmed instead of being removed, however the root system could be damaged in the process of digging the new foundation. The Commission held general discussion regarding the benefit of preserving the tree. Keith Youngquist supported comments from the Engineering Department regarding direction of the downspouts. Chairperson Juracek called for comments from the audience on this case. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 pm. Richard Rogers stated that generally he would not be in favor of going into the side yard, but in light of the current size of the garage door, this is a reasonable request. Keith Youngquist concurred and said in the long-run this is a very favorable option. Chair Juracek stated that this renovation maintains the character of the home. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 3-foot, 11-inch side yard setback along the north lot line, as presented, with revisions to address Engineering’s comment concerning the service walk, for the residence at 215 S. George Street, Case Number PZ-24-06. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing two additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-24-06 215 S George St - Variation.doc