Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/28/2002 P&Z minutes 2-02MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING.OF TH ~: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: February 28, 2002 Bill Thed°rf 915 S. Louis Street REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Variation to front yard setback to construct a 2-car attached garage Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Ray & Laura Hinze Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33p.m. Minutes of the January 24 meeting were approved. At 7:35, Ms. Juracek announced the withdrawal of Case No. PC-18-01 and introduced Case No. PZ-02-02, a request for a Variation to construct an attached 2-car garage that encroaches 4' into the required front yard. She explained that this case would be P&Z Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She described the subject property as an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and explained that the applicant proposes to convert the existing one-car garage to living space and construct a new 2-car attached garage. The new garage would encroach four-feet into the front yard and have a 26-foot setback, while the Zoning Ordinance requires 30-feet. The petitioner is seeking a Variation for the setback and would construct the new garage of face brick and cedar that matohes the house, and would have a peaked roof to match the existing roofline. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner has explored other designs for a 2-car garage, but could not arrive at a design that was practical and met Village code requirements. The floor plan indicates that the split-level home would have to be significantly modified to accommodate a new 2-car garage that complies with zoning regulations. In his application, the petitioner states that the home is the only one in the subdivision that was designed with a one-car side-loading garage, that the new garage will not be detrimental to the adjacent properties, and that the proposed improvements would improve the value of the neighborhood. The neighbors adjacent to the petitioner have submitted letters stating their support of the petitioner's variation. Ms. Connolly explained that Staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. The subject property is an 8,276.4 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and primarily rectangular in shape. The parcel is developed with a single-family home and a one-car, side-loading, attached garage. The size and shape of the subject property is typical of most residential properties in the Village. In order to expand the one-car garage to a 2- car, the front windows of the house would be blocked and significant modification of the house would be required. Also, the side yards are less than eight-feet. Therefore, constructing a detached garage that would compl× with zoning regulations could be possible, but the driveway would be too narrow and the petitioner would need relief from Development Code requirements for the minimum driveway width, which is 9-feet. Also, a driveway less than eight- feet wide may not be a safe design. Ms. Connolly said that although the petitioner is creating his own hardship by constructing a 2-car garage 26-feet from the front lot line, the manner in which the site is developed, a split-level house with side yards less than eight-feet, is a Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-02-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 unique physical condition of the subject property. In addition, the proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed variation would not have a detrimental effect on the neighborhood character. However, the convenience of a 2-car garage does not meet the standards for a variation and the petitioner is creating the need for a variation. Based on these findings, Staffreeommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach four-feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback for the residence at 915 S. Louis Street, Case No. PZ~02-02. The Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Commissioners questioned Judy about the Development Code's driveway regulations, lot widths, and their application to this ease. Ms. Connolly explained the 9' driveway width requirement and reviewed typical lot sizes in the R1 zoning district. Bill Thedorf, petitioner, was sworn in. He explained that'his was the last house built in the subdivision thirty years ago. He said that his house is unique to the area because it has a side-loading 1-car garage and his living and dining rooms look out at the back yard. He said that the existing driveway covers a significant portion of his front yard and that -the design is necessary to access the side-loading garage, but it is difficult to maneuver. Mr. Thedorf said that snow removal is difficult for him since he must carry all the snow to the north side of the driveway to avoid dumping the snow on the neighbor's property. In addition to the proposed new garage, he will be installing a new door, roof and landscaping. He said he feels these changes will improve the appearance of his home and be an asset to the neighborhood. Ms. Juracek said she felt the remov~al of the large driveway would be an improvement that would need to be weighed against the encroachrnen, t on the front setback. Mr. Flor0s asked about the size of the proposed garage, 20' x 30'. Mr. Thedorf said the reason for that size was to match the width of the existing garage on the other side of the house and to balance the look of the house. He said that the depth is a standard size, but it creates the four-foot encroachment. Mr. Donnelly questioned the permissibility of roof overhangs that encroach into the setbacks, which he noticed in this neighborhood. Ms. C~)nnolly said that the Zoning Ordinance permits eaves, gutters, and bay windows to encroach up to 24" into the required yard. Ms. Juracek asked if any neighbors were at the meeting to speak. She noted that.the Planni~g and Zoning Commission had received an e-mail from Jane and Roy Garland and correspondence from the Dorners in favor of the requested Variation. Mr. Thedorf said his neighbors from across the street were there to show support. Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing at 7:52. Richard Rogers said he was against:the encroachment. He said that front yard setbacks should be sacrosanct in order to keep the streetscape uniform and stated concerns about setting a precedent. Matt Sledz said the site does present challenges and that he is also concerned about setting precedents. However, there are enough unique situations in this request to distinguish it from other requests. Mr. Floros said this was a definite hardship and that he did not understand how the petitioner had lived with the situation for thirty years. Mr. Floros emphasized that each case should be studied on its own merit. Mr. Donnelly agreed with Ms. Juracek's assessment that the request was a trade- off situation: a 'greener' front yard vs. a four-feet encroachment. Mr~ Rogers said he thought an 8' driveway should be allowed at the side of the house and a detached garage erected behind the house. Other Commissioners disagreed with that idea since an 8' driveway would not be safe. Ms. Juracek said that the driveway required to access a detached garage would also increase the lot coverage. lanning and Zoning Commission PZ-02-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Leo Floros moved to approve the Variation to permit a 26-foot fi'ont setback as requested by Case No. PZ-02-02. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 5-1. At 11:23 p.m., after hearing Cases PZ-03-02, PZ-04-02 and PZ-05-02, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, · seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary