Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/2004 P&Z minutes 40-04 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION *REVISED* CASE NO. PZ-40-04 Hearing Date: October 28, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 102 S. William Street PE TITI 0 NER: Tom & Katherine Cummings PUBLICATION DATE: October 13,2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-12-208-013-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Unenclosed Porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Cummings and Dorothy Ceisel Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-26-04, Variations for the St. Paul Lutheran Church project. Matt Sledz made a motion to continue PZ-26-04 to November 11, 2004; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-40-04, a request for a Variation for an unenclosed porch to encroach 9.47-feet into the front yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home are limited to replacing an existing porch with an unenclosed porch. The front setback of the proposed unenclosed porch would be the same as the existing porch, but the new porch would include a 2' overhang for a small portion of the porch. The Petitioner included the overhang to add architectural interest to the unenclosed porch. Also, the porch would be slightly modified to wrap-around the house and extend into the side yard. The portion of the porch that extends into the side yard meets setbacks regulations and does not require relief from zoning regulations. However, the front setback would be less than 2 I-feet. The Zoning Ordinance lists unenclosed porches that encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard setback as Conditional Uses and the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for the request. The proposed unenclosed porch requires a Variation and Village Board approval because it exceeds the scope of the parameters for a Conditional Use. In this case, the Petitioner proposes to rebuild the porch, but 'open it up' using a wood railing, and a combination of wood and stone columns instead of the solid wall that currently exists. The roofline of the house extends over the porch and this design dictates that the porch to be replaced using the same footprint as the existing porch. The floor would continue to be raised and a lattice would screen the base and extend into the ground. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-40-04 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 REVISED The existing home does not comply with the Village’s zoning regulations because the existing porch encroaches into the required front yard and has a 22.2’ setback. The Petitioner proposes to replace the porch to maintain the structural integrity of the house and the porch, but also include a 2’ overhang as part of the new porch. The footprint of the porch would be 22.2’ but the overhang extends almost 2’ past the existing setback. The proposed unenclosed porch requires relief from the RA District’s bulk regulations for the front yard setback. The porch would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the request, the request has to meet the standards for a Variation, which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to replace a nonconforming structure and include a 2’ overhang as part of the new structure. The Zoning Ordinance allows certain nonconforming structures to be replaced as long as the site meets lot coverage requirements. However, the proposed porch does not meet the nonconforming criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance and a Variation is required. The Petitioner has explored different designs for the porch, but the design of the roof limits their options. The existing roof extends into the setback and the posts are load-bearing piers that carry the weight of the roof. In order to meet current zoning regulations, the roof would have to be significantly modified because the posts that extend into the required front yard ensure the structural integrity of the roofline. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard for the house. However, the existing structure does not meet this requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct the porch almost ten-feet into the required setback, as it currently exists. Although the proposed encroachment is slightly more than the existing encroachment, the request meets the standards for a Variation because there is a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance: which means that replacing the porch as required by the Zoning Ordinance would create a practical difficulty in meeting code requirements because of unusual circumstances such as the roofline. Ms. Connolly concluded by stating that Staff found that the Petitioner’s request to improve the house and have an unclosed porch encroach into the front yard met the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance because the roofline creates a hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the footprint of the porch would be the same as the existing porch, and the two-foot overhang does not change the footprint of the porch. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the approve Village Board a Variation to allow a 10’ front yard setback for an unenclosed porch as shown on the Petitioner’s exhibits for the residence at 102 S. William Street, Case No. PZ-40-04. The Village Board’s decision is final for this case. Tom Cummings, 102 S. William Street, Mount Prospect, and Dorothy Ceisel, 7339 N. School Street, Niles, IL were sworn in. Mr. Cummings reviewed the project and stated that the porch floor had to be replaced because it was deteriorating. He said that he and his wife wanted to take this opportunity to improve the aesthetics of the house by opening up the porch and making it more inviting. Ms. Ceisel reviewed the architectural elements of the project and compared the over hang to a bay window. She noted that the over hang would not extend to the ground and that the existing steps occupy more of the front yard than the over hang. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the age and style of the house, how the new porch would enhance the house, and that the roof prevented the new porch from complying with current regulations. There was discussion on how the porch and over hang would provide more ‘green space’ in the front yard than what currently exists. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone was in the audience who wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Bob Leopold, 107 S. William Street, was sworn in. Mr. Leopold asked for clarification on the design of the porch and did not object to the Petitioner’s request. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion or further discussion. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-40-04 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 REVISED Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation that would allow an unenclosed porch with a 2’ over hang to encroach 9.47’ into the required front yard, for the property located at 102 S. William Street, Case No. PZ-40-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Juracek, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, and Sledz NAYS: None approved 5-0 Motion was . At 8:36 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. __________________________________ Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-40-04 102 S William Porch VAR.doc