Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/25/2001 ZBA minutes 3-01 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-03-2001 Hearing Date: January 25, 2001 PETITIONER: Arthur & Denice Krueger SUBJECT PROPERTY: 609 Eastman PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to construct an unenclosed 5' x 56' unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Iuracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Arthur & Denice Kmeger Chris George Tim Nemmer Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting were approved. The Zoning Board heard two cases and at 8:50, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case ZBA-03-2001, a variation to construct an unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard setback. The Zomng Board's decision is final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given, and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a variation to construct an unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard setback. She described the subject property as an exisfmg home located on a coruer lot on a single-family residential street, which dead-ends into an adjacent industrial park. The home is currently set back almost 35' from the front lot line on Eastman Drive and 20' from the exterior lot line on Holly Ave. The applicant would like to construct a 5'x56' unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard along Holly Ave, wtf~ch is used as the front of the house. The porch would encroach 5' into the required 20' setback and requires a variation. The home currently meets the required setback and does not encroach into this yard. Ms. Counolly explained that the petitioners are adding a second story addition and that the porch will create a un/fled look to the residence. The proposed unenclosed porch is similar to other porches that received a Conditional Use permit and that the petitioners feel that the proposed porch will enhance the home by adding a unifying, desirable feature to the structure. However, the proposed structure would come to within 15' of the property line as opposed to 25' for front yard porches. The applicant is seeking a variation because the structure will be located in the side yard setback and the Conditional Use is applicable to porches in the front yard setback. Ms. Connolly stated that, in order to conduct its analysis of the proposed variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. She described the subject parcel as a 12,675 square foot parcel that is relatively level, out of any flood zone and rectangular. The parcel is developed with a single family home and attached garage. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-03-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly explained that the reasons for the proposed vaiiation are aesthetic, rather than financial. The applicant proposes the encroachment to unify the second-story addition with the existing structure. She said that the porch could enhance the character of the existing single-family residential area and would not have a negative effect on the public welfare. However, no particular condition of the lot justifies the proposed encroachment and there isn't sufficient justification for a Variation by the standards outlined in the Zoffmg Ordinance. Ms. Connolly stated that, although the proposed variation could have a positive effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA deny the proposed Variation to permit a 5' x 56' unenclosed porch to encroach 5' into the required 20' exterior side yard setback for the residence at 609 Eastman Drive, Case No. ZBA-03-01. Ms. luracek asked if Zoning Board members had any questions for staff. Leo Floros asked if this property was adjacent to the Kensington Center and Ms. Connolly said it was directly east. Hal Ettinger asked if this property had a Holly Avenue address, how would this impact the request. Ms. Connolly responded that the Zoning Ordinance defines the front of a property as having the narrowest frontage and that a Holly Avenue address would not change the petitioner's need to obtain a variation to construct the porch along Holly Avenue. Ms. Juracek asked about lot coverage and was told that 45% coverage is allowed and that the coverage would be at 32%, including the proposed addition. Ms. Juracek noted that the house is set back 5' more than the setback required on Eastman. Mr. Youngquist asked if sizes of certain lots had increased when the Village vacated a portion of Wheeling Road in the late '80s. Ms. Connolly said that the subject property was increased as a result of the Village vacating a right-of-way when the industrial park was buik. Ms. luracek asked the petitioner to present the project. Art Kmeger, 609 Eastman, was sworn in. Mr. Kmeger said that he felt his neighborhood needed a change and that by redesigning his home he hopes to encourage other neighbors to reinvest in their property. He stated that he wanted to add a second floor onto the existing structure and that an unenclosed porch, that was basically a 5' covered walkway leading to an existing 7' sidewalk connecting to the city sidewalk, gives the addition a unified appearance. He said that he and his wife are expecting their first child and want to stay in Mount Prospect. He noted that the house is located on a dead-end street and has very little traffin. Mr. Kmeger said that the addition and porch would improve the appearance of the dead-end street since the Village removed several large pine trees. He added that the telephone lines prohibited them from adding onto the back of their home (east) because there is a utility easement. Richard Rogers asked Mr. Krueger if he understood that should the Zoning Board approve the requested variation for a porch that the porch has to remain unenclosed. Mr. Krueger said yes, and that he had no plans to enclose the porch. Tom Nemmer, 607 N. Eastman, was sworn in. He testified that the Krueger family has lived in the home for five years and that he supports the proposed porch based on how well Mr. Krueger has already improved the property. Mr. Nemmer agreed that the neighborhood has a lot of potential for remodeling and expanding houses and said that he is in favor of attempts to beautify the area. He said that he thought his neighbor's second story was a necessary addition, especially since the home does not have a basement. Mr. Nemmer agreed that the porch helps to '~tie-in" the addition to the home. At 9:10, Chairperson Jumcek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. Keith Youngquist told Mr. Krueger that his immediate neighbors will not be able to build homes this large, due to new FAR requirements to be enacted tonight. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-03-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chaiiperson Page 3 Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation to construct an unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard setback. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 9:25 p.m., after another case was heard, Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner