Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2026 PZ-18-26 / 505 S Wa Pella Ave / CU: 18-Foot-Tall Garage1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-18-26 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PROPERTY OWNER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: August 13, 2026 505 Wa Pella Avenue AndrewVenamore 602 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL John Thornton 505 Wa Pella Avenue J u ly 29, 2026 Conditional use approval for an 18-foot-tall garage. Joseph Donnelly Ewa Weir Walter Szymczak Fay Costa Michael Fricano Donald Olsen William Beattie Richard Rogers Charlie Hogan — Senior Planner Catherine Cook— Community Development Planning Intern John Thornton Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. Chairman Donnelly then moved to Item Two, Approval of Minutes. Commissioner Szymczak made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fricano, to approve the minutes of the July 23, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Chairman Donnelly noted a conflict in the details of the minutes. Mr. Hogan replied that staff would look into Chairman Donnelly's concern. Chairman Donnelly made a motion to modify the minutes as required to reflect what was approved versus what was written. He asked Commissioner Szymczak and Commissioner Fricano whether they accepted the amendment, and both agreed. The minutes were approved 3-0, with Commissioner Weir and Commissioner Costa abstaining. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Chairman Donnelly then introduced Case No. PZ-18-26, 505 Wa Pella Avenue, a request for conditional use approval to build an 18-foot-tall garage at the Subject Property. He confirmed with staff that the case is Planning and Zoning Final. Ms. Cook presented the case. She explained that the Petitioner is Andrew Venamore of Heartland Garage Builders and that the Property Owner is John Thornton. The Petitioner requested approval to install an 18-foot-tall (18'-0") garage with a lofted storage space. Under Village code, detached garages are permitted a maximum height of 15 feet (15'-0"). Staff recommended approval, subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Ms. Cook stated that the Subject Property was annexed into the Village in 1925 and is improved with a single-family residence, constructed in 1958. She stated that the property consists of approximately 0.22 acres and has frontage on South Wa Pella Avenue, south of West Shabonee Trail. The property is zoned R-A Single Family Residential, and all surrounding properties are also zoned R-A and developed with single-family homes. She stated that the Property Owner has resided at the Subject Property since 2016. Ms. Cook noted that the Staff Report incorrectly identified the existing garage as 15-feet-tall (15'-011 ) when it is in fact 13-feet-tall (13'-0"). The Petitioner proposed to replace the existing 13-foot-tall garage with a new 18-foot-tall (18'-0") garage. Pursuant to the Village's Zoning Ordinance, detached garages are not permitted to exceed 15 feet (15'-0") in height. The Petitioner stated that he wanted to build the taller garage to accommodate additional storage space. Staff found the proposed garage to conform with other village code relevant to the property and project. Specifically, staff noted that: • The proposed garage would only be used for approved garage uses, including parking and storage of household goods. • The garage was proposed at 720 square feet, the maximum allowed for a detached garage (recently increased from 672 to 720 square feet under PZ-01-26). • The proposed garage would bring the property to a lot coverage of 44.4%, below the maximum 50% lot coverage requirement. • The proposed garage conformed with all setbacks required for accessory structures on R-A zoned properties. Ms. Cook said the Petitioner provided images of the principal structure before and after the exterior renovations. The new garage was designed to complement the architecture of the Property Owner's existing home. She showed the current 13-foot-tall garage, renderings of the proposed garage, and elevation drawings. Ms. Cook shared that the owners of the immediately adjacent properties at 503 and 507 South Wa Pella Avenue submitted written support for the proposal. Staff received a signature sheet from the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Property Owner with seven signatures of support, two of whom were the adjacent property owners who provided letters. Staff received three verbal comments, two in support and one in opposition, and two letters of opposition. Ms. Cook explained that those opposed cited concerns that an increase in garage height would set a precedent, resulting in more properties seeking increased garage height. Staff noted that all conditional use requests are reviewed on a case -by -case basis and are not determined by precedent. One commenter asked why the Petitioner could not simply rent a storage unit. Opponents also expressed concern that the garage would degrade nearby property values, viewing it as ill-fitting to the neighborhood and more commercial than residential in appearance. Lastly, those opposed cited concerns that the additional space would be used as office space, in violation of Village code. Ms. Cook shared that staff evaluated the request against the seven Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff found that the proposal: • Would not negatively affect public health or safety, • Was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, • Would not impede future development, • Required no additional public infrastructure, • Would not create traffic impacts, • Was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and • Complied with all other applicable R-A regulations, except for the relief specifically requested. Staff therefore recommended approval of the motion for a new garage, subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report. Under the authority granted through the text amendments earlier this year, the Planning and Zoning Commission serves as the final decision -making body for this request, and no Village Board action was required following the hearing. Ms. Cook concluded her presentation, noting that both Staff and the Petitioner were available to answer questions. Chairman Donnelly asked for questions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Weir asked what the 8' x 8' concrete pad was intended for. Chairman Donnelly said they would ask the Petitioner. Mr. Hogan noted that staff had not specifically asked about the concrete pad, but that the Petitioner was allowed to install it regardless of the Conditional Use. Commissioner Weir asked how staff evaluates when to modify Village requirements to increase garage height. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Mr. Hogan explained that, as part of the text amendments, all changes to accessory structures became Conditional Uses, with final authority given to the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was the Petitioner's right to apply for a larger garage; he could theoretically have applied for a smaller or Larger one and would still receive a hearing. He applied for an 18-foot garage because he felt it was appropriate. Commissioner Weir asked how the proposal related to the height of the house. Mr. Hogan said they could ask the Petitioner what the current height of the house was. He added that he did not imagine it was taller than 30 feet or so. Commissioner Weir thanked Mr. Hogan for his response. Commissioner Costa noted that, regarding an objection from a neighbor about office space, the owner had mentioned headroom in the garage attic in his own statement. She asked whether that implied the space was, or could be, more of a living area than a storage space, and how staff evaluated storage space versus living space. Mr. Hogan explained that the intent of the code provision preventing office space was to prevent people from operating home -based businesses in their garage - for example, a situation where customers came to the property, which staff did not want addressed by allowing an office building in a resident's backyard. As far as staff understood it, the entire space was intended for storage, and hobby activity in a garage was not explicitly prohibited. Commissioner Costa thanked Mr. Hogan. Seeing no further questions from the Commissioners, Chairman Donnelly invited the Petitioner to the podium. He swore in the Petitioner, Andrew Venamore of 602 Academy Drive, Northbrook, Illinois, and the Property Owner, John Thornton of 505 Wa Pella Avenue. Both the Petitioner and the Property Owner introduced themselves. Mr. Venamore explained that he was both the applicant and the builder of the project. Chairman Donnelly asked whether both the Petitioner and the Property Owner owned the property. Mr. Venamore clarified that he applied as the applicant and that his company would build the garage, while Mr. Thornton was the Property Owner. Chairman Donnelly thanked him for the clarification. Mr. Venamore thanked the Chairman and explained that the goal of the project was to construct a replacement two -car garage designed to match the architectural style and colors of the house. He noted that the existing garage was falling into disrepair, that the driveway dropped appreciably from the middle of the house downward, and that water entered the front of the garage with nearly every rainfall, causing long-term detrimental impact to the structure as a result, the structure needed to be replaced. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Mr. Venamore continued that the new garage would meet all remaining zoning requirements relating to setback and lot coverage. He noted that the proposed garage would also remedy the issue of the current garage being less than 3 feet from the property line. Following the Village trustees' approval of the recent text amendments, the maximum allowable garage size increased to 720 square feet the size of the proposed garage and, as staff had noted, the Petitioner could seek approval for the increased garage height through the Conditional Use application process. Mr. Venamore noted that the Commissioners had already raised questions about the attic level. He explained that the height increase was specifically designed to accommodate Mr. Thornton's height while he used the storage space. He said the letter submitted as part of the application package conveyed the intent of the space. He pointed out that areas exceeding 6 feet accounted for less than 40% of the square footage of the space and, as such, were not intended to be used as living space now or in the future. Mr. Venamore then discussed the exterior design of the proposed garage, with the goal of reflecting the architecture of the principal structure on the property. He said they chose a gabled roof, similar to the principal structure, with intersecting gables from each of the four sides of the proposed garage. He explained that this decision gave the structure architectural merit and visual interest, rather than having it appear as simply a large structure in the backyard. He said the color scheme, siding, trim, and other elements were designed to replicate the house. Mr. Venamore then asked Mr. Thornton to explain how he intended to use the space. Chairman Donnelly asked for clarification as to whether a 15-foot-tall garage was available that could accomplish the same architectural goals as the one proposed while still resolving the Property Owner's storage issues. He noted that the Petitioner's presentation indicated that matching the house was the reason the 18-foot-tall garage was needed. He felt that a 15-foot-tall garage could achieve the same outcome and still meet code. Mr. Venamore explained that the architectural aesthetic could be achieved at 15 feet, but that the intended use of the space was to provide enough room to store the homeowner's radio equipment. He said a 15-foot-tall structure would provide only 3.5 to 4 feet of clearance under the ridge beam, meaning neither the Petitioner nor the Property Owner would be able to stand in the area. Chairman Donnelly explained that the intent of his line of questioning was to determine whether the Petitioner was building what he would consider an attic or a second story. He continued that his question was whether the Commission would approve a height in which the Property Owner could stand, or whether a 15-foot-tall garage that met code could achieve everything the Petitioner had described architecturally. Mr. Venamore acknowledged that, architecturally, this was correct, but noted that the exterior was unrelated to the interior use of the space. He said he used the term "attic" because the amount of Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 space above 6 feet in height was less than 40% of the first floor, making it a half story by his own definition and, thus, an attic, since the area was not considered overly functional. Chairman Donnelly thanked Mr. Venamore for the clarification. The Property Owner, Mr. Thornton, then explained his goal forth e increase in garage height. He said he had been a longtime volunteer with the Mount Prospect emergency response team, was now retired, but continued to volunteer with the Salvation Army, including with a radio team called the Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network. He said he would use the additional storage space to test equipment before deployment, and he noted a Salvation Army exercise with the Air National Guard scheduled for later in the month. Mr. Thornton confirmed that the space would not be used to run a business or as office space, and that it would instead support his volunteer activities with the Salvation Army. He said he would spend limited time in the storage room other than prior to deployments. He noted that the principal structure was rather small, with an unreliable basement due to flooding events, and that having his emergency preparedness equipment ready to help his neighbors and the Salvation Army was important to him. He further cited his height as another reason for the 18-foot-tall request. Chairman Donnelly confirmed that this would not be a heated or air-conditioned space. Mr. Thornton said there would be no heating or air-conditioning, that windows would provide ventilation, and that he could bring a space heater into the space during the winter. Mr. Venamore concluded the presentation by noting that, when the project started, he and Mr. Thornton had conversed with staff since they knew it would be a challenge, with the Property Owner having worked with staff for roughly six months before Mr. Venamore joined the project. He felt it was important to note that, in discussions with staff, staff had shared that they had received comments from residents over time about increasing the size and height of accessory structures, and that staff felt there was a rationale to approach the trustees with the amendment tied to somewhat larger garages than previously permitted, as well as to the height provision. He felt it was relevant that this Conditional Use process, based on his conversations with staff, was an attempt not to solve every possible situation, since not everyone wanted a large garage, but staff felt the change was reasonable enough to bring to the Village trustees. He thanked the Commission. Commissioner Weir expressed appreciation for the aesthetic of the garage, agreeing it would be nice for it to match the house, and noted that the zoning code prevented this in a similar situation she had faced. She asked, since the proposed space would carry forward to future owners of the property, about the use and need for the additional storage space, given that ample room appeared to exist on the first floor of the proposed garage if the staircase were removed. She also referenced her earlier question to staff about the 8' x 8' concrete pad, and noted a storage shed currently located in the rear yard. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Mr. Thornton said the 8' x 8' concrete pad would provide a supportive base for the hot tub currently on the property. He explained that the stairs provided a safer way for him to move heavy equipment up to the storage space, as he was approaching 70 years old. Chairman Donnelly noted the two increases in garage size since he joined the Planning and Zoning Commission, and expressed sensitivity to how residents use garage space for hobbies. He felt the recently added 50 square feet would provide enough space for the intended storage need without additional space above the garage. He noted that future owners might use the space differently, and that the Commission remained sensitive to setting precedent. Mr. Thornton shared that the additional first -floor space would be used for additional workbench space to perform household work, and to store bicycles and items that could not be stored in the shed. He noted that propane cylinders, gas containers, garbage cans, two cars, and items associated with being a grandparent would also be stored on the first floor. Mr. Thornton reiterated that basement flooding was the main issue, with three instances of backup from the combined sanitation and storm sewers. Chairman Donnelly asked whether there was a reason for frequent flooding at the property, such as being in a flood plain. Mr. Thornton explained that the street's combined sanitation and storm sewers became overloaded, backflowing into the house. He said he had subsequently installed a flood protection system in the front yard to prevent water from entering the house, but water still entered. He noted that water had entered the house through the window wells while the roof was being worked on, as the drain tiles had overflowed. Commissioner Weir said the flooding issue was irrelevant to this discussion. She pointed out an additional 12 feet beyond the nose of the cars and a significant amount of space dedicated to circulation, noting that a redesign of the space would create more opportunities for storage on the first floor. She added that, if the stairs were for safety, storing items on the first floor would eliminate the need for Mr. Thornton to carry heavy equipment upstairs. She asked whether the needed square footage for the use could be examined further. Mr. Thornton shared that he intended to use the entire second floor for amateur radio equipment and emergency preparedness equipment, while the first floor would store items commonly kept in a garage. Chairman Donnelly recalled his earlier question regarding the height of the house. Mr. Thornton shared that the height of the house was 18 feet. Chairman Donnelly noted that the garage and house would therefore be the same height. Mr. Venamore explained that this would only be the case if both structures were on a level plane. He noted that a difference in grading part of the problem causing water to enter the garage Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 caused the detached garage to sit 20 to 22 inches lower than the house, so the garage would remain physically lower than the house on the Subject Property. Chairman Donnelly asked whether there was a reason for the side door in the garage. Mr. Venamore explained that the site plan showed functional patio space adjacent to the garage, with the door providing access to that area and creating an indoor -outdoor space. Chairman Donnelly noted an area of grass between the patio and garage that kept the two from connecting. Mr. Thornton explained that the current grass area would be covered once the garage was moved closer to the patio, as the garage was currently too close to the neighboring property. He said he hoped to use the patio as an entertaining space for neighbors. Commissioner Costa referenced the earlier point that the garage would remain lower than the house and asked whether drainage issues would still be present as a result. Mr. Venamore pointed out that a trench drain would be installed at the front of the garage apron, intended to move water away from the garage and onto the Subject Property. Commissioner Costa asked where the trench drain would lead. Mr. Venamore explained that the drain would skirt around the adjacent patio in an easterly direction, with water absorbed into the backyard. Chairman Donnelly opened the floor to anyone present to discuss the case. Mr. Hogan reiterated to the Commission that they were assessing whether the proposed garage met the standards of a conditional use, not whether the proposed height was needed. He pointed out that a lower bar applied because the request was a conditional use, and that garage sizing and the ability to perform certain activities in the space were less relevant than whether the proposal would be detrimental to the overall public good, in addition to the standard conditional use conditions. Commissioner Costa said that, regarding overall public good, she wanted to discuss drainage further, especially given the existing flooding issues on the property. She was unsure whether water from the trench drain draining into the backyard would be appropriate, given the Property Owner's history of flooding issues, and she was uncertain about the water situation on neighboring properties. Mr. Thornton explained that water issues in the backyard had occurred only directly in front of the existing garage. He noted that a drain installed by previous owners had since filled with mud, and no remedy had helped. He said he had asked Mr. Venamore to develop a solution to the drainage issue. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 Mr. Venamore described a black corrugated pipe with perforations across the bottom, through which water would run instead of entering the garage. He said a silt sock would be installed to keep earth out of the pipe while still allowing water to drain. He noted that the pipe would navigate around 30 to 35 feet of ground cover near the patio, and that water would daylight at the back of the patio, depending on rainfall intensity. Chairman Donnelly asked whether this solution would be required for any new garage built in this location, and whether the water issue was the reason for the increased garage height. Mr. Venamore noted the change in grading, as the driveway slopes down toward the garage. He clarified that he was not asserting that water was a reason for the increased garage height, but rather that the trench drain was a solution to a condition that had long existed on the property, causing damage to the existing garage over time. Chairman Donnelly clarified that the drainage issue would be resolved once the garage was replaced. Mr. Venamore confirmed that was correct. Chairman Donnelly commented that he had experienced flooding issues in his own basement, which installing overhead sewers had resolved. Mr. Thornton explained that plumbers had told him it would be cost -prohibitive to install an overhead sewer for his home, which was why they instead had the flood protection system in the front yard. He said the only drainage issues in the backyard had involved pooling of water in front of the garage, and he felt the solution Mr. Venamore designed would help resolve that issue. Commissioner Costa asked staff whether the Village Engineer had reviewed the plans. Mr. Hogan replied that the Village Engineer had reviewed the plans and had no issues with them. Commissioner Costa thanked staff. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditional use based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Szymczak made a motion, and Commissioner Weir seconded it. Chairman Donnelly opened the floor to discussion. Chairman Donnelly shared that his concerns pertained to the recently approved increase in garage size, noting that the amendments were meant to accommodate a situation like this one. He said the Commission did not want residents creating a second story above their garages and would rather see wider garages than taller ones. Seeing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly called for a roll call. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26 10 Seeing no further comments, Chairman Donnelly called for a roll call. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Szymczak, Costa, Fricano NAYS: Donnelly, Weir The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the request (3-2). After continuing another item of new business, Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Szymczak made a motion seconded by Commissioner Weir and the meeting was adjourned at 7:42 PM. Catherine Cook, Planning Intern Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting — August 13, 2026 PZ-18-26