Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2001 ZBA minutes 19-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-19-2001 Hearing Date: July 26, 2001 PETITIONER: Kelly & John D'Acquisto PUBLICATION DATE: July I 1, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to allow construction of a garage in the rear setback MEMBERS PRESENT: . Hal Ettinger Merrill Cotten Leo Floros . Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Kelly & John D'Acquisto Henry W. Youngquist Tony Andrews Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The minutes of the June 28, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0; Merrill Cotton and Keith Youngquist were not at the June meeting. At 8:01 p.m., after hearing two cases, Ms. Arlene Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-19-01, a request for a Variation to allow construction of a garage in the rear setback. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property is an existing home with an attached garage located on a comer lot. Per the Zoning Ordinance, the front of the lot is along Lincoln Street and the exterior side yard is on WeGo even though the main entrance to the house is from WeGo Trail. Ms. Counolly said the petitioners would like to convert the existing attached garage into living space and construct a new attached garage directly in front of it, maintaining the existing 13' 11" rear setback and explained that current code requires a 25-foot setback. The petitioners are seeking a variation to construct a new, attached garage that has a 13' 11" rear setback. Ms. Connolly reported that, in order to approve the Variation, the request has to meet the seven standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said the standards relate to: the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties; not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; a lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly reported that staff reviewed the pctitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. The subject parcel is an 11,375 square foot rectangular parcel that is out of any flood zone. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. She said the existing rear setback does not comply with current code requirements, but is consistent with the rear setback of the property north of the subject property, which has a 16'10" rear setback. The proposed attached garage is not different from what is located on the adjacent lot, but it would alter the view for the adjacent property. In addition, the potitioners state in their application that the appearance of the house and character of the neighborhood would be adversely impacted if the new garage met the 25-foot rear setback. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA- 19-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioners' reasons for the proposed variation relate to the house being on a corner lot and maintaining the current look and character of the house. However, the standards for a variation are based on physical characteristics of the property and the impact of the variation on the adjacent properties and the neighborhood. The lot and house are typical of other properties in the Village and the garage could be built according to current Zoning requirements. Locating the attached garage 13.83-feet from the rear lot line would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare, but the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation as required by the Zoning Ordinance. While the proposed variation may be consistent with conditions of other properties in this neighborhood and not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal 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 ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit an attached garage to encroach into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback for the residence at 350 WeGo Trail. Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked if petitioners were present and wished to speak. Kelly and John D'Acquisto were sworn in. Ms. D'Acquisto stated they had just closed on their WeGo home, which they purchased because they love the neighborhood. She said the house was small with not much living space and that they wanted to expand and add a family room, since there was no basement. She said that an addition to the back of their house (west lot line) would leave no backyard for their son to play in and that it would require covering up the windows of the bedrooms, and limit the light to the bedrooms. She said that an addition in the front yard would disrupt a large rnaple tree and the driveway. Also, there would be a cost savings in not ripping up the driveway. Ms. D'Acquisto said that they chose their proposed addition design because tlfis design would also allow them to maintain the same roof structure and not have to build a double gable roof, which she lek would not be in character with the neighboring homes. Mr. Rogers asked about the size of the maple tree and was told it was about 50' in height, with a very wide trunk. Merrill Cotton asked if the proposed garage would extend further toward WeGo than the neighbor's garage. Ms. D'Acquisto said it would be at the same distance from WeGo and look more like the neighbor's house. Ms. Jumcek compared the petitioners' house to a house on WeGo and Pendleton Streets and said she thought it appeared that the houses had been originally built offset as they were in order to allow more sunlight to reach the neighbors' houses and to provide a wider vista. She then asked if members of the audience wished to speak. Henry W. Youngquist, 320 S. WeGo Trail, was sworn in. He directed the Zoning Board's-attention to a letter he had sent them, which protests this request. He said that the view from his sunroom would be drastically reduced with the proposed plan and that he would only have a view ora brick wall. He pointed out that the petitioners could add on to the front or back of the house without encroaching into the required setbacks. Hal Ettinger pointed out to the D'Acquistos that they would need to contend with a difference in grade level and would need to address that with a step up to their existing living area. Tony Andrews, 8212 N. Newcastle, Niles, contractor for the proposed addition, was sworn in. After some discussion with Mr. Ettinger, Mr. Andrews came to the conclusion that a step from one area to the next would accommodate the change in grade level. Mr. Henry Youngquist returned to the podium to state that the tree in question is a sugar maple. He said that it was very brittle and not in good shape because of all the salt that it comes in contact with in winter. He said he thinks the tree will need to be removed shortly and that it should not be the basis for allowing the home to encroach into the setback. Several Zoning Board members had questions about the staff sketches, which showed the location of the garage complying with the 25-foot rear setback. Ms. Connolly said that the exhibks were prepared to illustrate that the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA- 19-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 improvements could be made while staying within the prescribed setbacks. Ms. Juracek clarified for the Zoning Board members that they will vote on the plan proposed by the petitioner. Mr. Keith Youngquist told the group that he would abstain from voting, since Mr. Henry Youngquist is kis father and that he had been raised in the home at 320 WeGo Trail. Mr. Youngquist said that this is a request for a substantial variation to a rear yard setback and that he has always voted no in such cases and would vote no again if he were to vote on this case. He said he did not approve of the design, which did not show a clear reason for the request. He pointed out that the variation, if granted, would apply to the entire north setback line and could lead to further additions on that side. Mr. Ettinger said that a hardship had not been proven in this case. Ms. Juracek said that the petitioners request was logical, but that the petitioners had alternatives in which to expand the house and acquire more living space in a manner that complied with the required setbacks At 8:40, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing. Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation m the Village Board to approve the request for a Variation to allow construction ora garage to encroach 11'2" into the rear setback at 350 S. WeGo, Case No. ZBA-19-01. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Floros, NAYS: Ettinger, Rogers and Juracek ABSTENTION: Youngquist Motion was denied 3-2. Ms. Juracek explained that the Village Board's decision would be final for this case and would be heard at their August 7~ meeting. At 10:00 p.m., after the Zoning -Board heard three more cases and tabled Case No. ZBA-21-01 to the August 23ra meeting, Merrill Cotten made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner