Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2001 ZBA minutes 22-2001 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO, ZBA-22-2001 Hearing Date: July 26, 2001 PETITIONERS: Brian and Carrie Krueger 1004 Callero Circle PUBLICATION DATE: July 11, 2001 Daily Herald REQUEST: Variation to allow construction of an addition to the house that would encroach into the side yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger ~ Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Brian and Carrie Krueger Andrew Venable Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. The minutes of the June 28, 2001 meet/rig were approved 4-0; Men-ill Cotton and Keith Youngqulst were not at the June meeting. At 9:20, Chairperson Arlene Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-22-01, a request for a Variation to allow construction of an addition to the house that would encroach into the side yard setback. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property is a house located on an interior lot on a cul-de-sac residential street. The size of the subject lot is recorded as 60' x 133.33' and zoned R2 Attached Single Family Residence. The petitioners applied for a Building Permit for an addition to the rear of the house. During the review process, it was determined that the proposed setback for the addition did not comply with current Zoning requirements. In this case, a 6-foot setback is required, but the addition would have a 5'7" setback that would decrease to 5'2.5" as the addition extends north. Ms. Connolly said that the exterior of the addition would be cedar material, and used as a family room. The petitioner's plans show that the front &the house is setback 5' 9" from the east lot line while the rear of the house is setback 5' 7". The existing setbacks do not conform to current code requirements, but are grandfathered in. The Zoning Ordinance requires that new construction meet current Zoning requirements, so the addition is required to maintain a 6' setback from the east lot line. The petitioner is seeking a variation to maintain the existing setback from the east lot line and states that a variation is needed due to the location of the house with respect to the property lines. Ms. Connolly reported that staffreviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, visited the site, and found that the size, shape, and development of the property are typical of most residential properties in the Village. Village records do not show that the developer received relief from Zon'mg requirements, which required a side yard setback to be 10' or 10% of lot width, whichever was less, when the development was built in 1976. However, the house was built on a slight angle and the existing setbacks along the east lot line do not comply with current code req~firements. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve a Variation, the request must meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance, which relate to: the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and 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. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-22-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that, although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by expanding the house into the required setback, the fact that the house was constructed on an angle is a unique physical condition of the subject property. Also, the addition would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the variation would not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character and the fact that the house was built on an angle supports a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA approve the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach into the side yard setback, maintaining no less than a 5' 2.5" side yard setback for the residence at 1004 Callero Cimle. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. Andrew Venemore, 6825 N. Lincoln, Lincoinwood, the architect for the proposed addition, was sworn in and testified that the Krueger's had lived in the home for five years, have four children and need added family space. The home is a two-fiat. Mr. Venable presented renderings and floor plans for the addition at the easel. He said that they are limited in their choices for expanding the structure to provide more living space due to the location of the rear exit and a cantilevered area over two bedrooms. He said that any other addition to this structure would also require a Variation and that the 5'2.5" side yard setback could be considered a relatively small request. Keith Youngquist asked about the location of the condensing unit for the air conditioner. Mr. Krueger said it had originally been in the back of the house and several years ago they received a Variation to move il to the side of the house. Mr. Youngquist said he could understand from the drawings and window locations why the addition needed to be located where it was designed. Richard Rogers also commended the petitioner for their drawings. At 9:34, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow construction of an addition to the house that would encroach into the side yard setback at 1004 Callero Cimle, Case No. ZBA-22-01. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Ettinger, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 6-0. At 10:00 p.m., after the Zoning Board heard one more eases and tabled Case No. ZBA-21-01 to the August 23r~ 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 Swia~ek, Planning Secretary J ~---~)~!~2on-nollj[S~ni[r Planner /~