Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2003 P&Z minutes 18-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-18-03 Hearing Date: June 26, 2003 PETITIONER: Brian and Julie Prempas 420 N. Fairview PIN #: 03-34-124-012 PUBLICATION DATE: June 11, 2003 REQUEST: Vari~ion MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chairperson Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Brian and Julie Prempas Jim Wallman Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Matt Sledz made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The May meeting minutes were approved 4-0. At 7:39, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-18-03, a request for a variation to install a patio that would encroach into the sideyard setback. Mr. Rogers said the Village Board decision would be final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case and said that the subject property is located at the southwest comer of Memory Lane and Fairview Avenue, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property, rectangular in shape, is zoned R-A Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R-A district on all sides. Ms. Connolly said that the width of the subject property is 49'2", which is slightly less than the 50-feet required by current zoning regulations. The existing attached garage and 5'x12' concrete patio do not meet the 20-foot setback regulations. The garage is located 22-feet from the rear lot line, almost 17-feet from the exterior lot line, and the patio has an 11-foot setback. However, the Zoning Ordinance classifies these structures as legal nonconformities that are permitted to be maintained and repaired. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to replace the existing concrete driveway and patio with brick pavers. As part of the project, the petitioner would like to increase the size of the patio and maintain a 3-foot exterior side yard instead of the existing 11-foot exterior side yard. She said that the petitioner's application includes installing a perimeter fence that would be installed to screen the patio from passersby and that the fence would include flowerpots to enhance the view. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the exterior side yard setback. She said that as part of the review, staff`found that the location of the proposed perimeter fence intended to screen the patio would require relief from Zoning Ordinance regulations because the fence would not be located entirely behind the principal structure. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-18-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Counolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the patio, resulting in a 3-foot exterior side yard setback. The subject property is rectangular in shape and has a slightly substandard width. She said that the placement of the house on the property, as well as the narrow lot width, creates challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, a smaller patio could be located along the south elevation of the house and meet the required setbacks. Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property inVolved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual cimumstances". She said that although the site is restricted by its small lot width and comer location, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. In addition, the location ora fence required to screen the patio would need relief from zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner has the option of replacing the existing patio in kind, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and using it and the driveway as a de-facto patio. Also, they could construct a second patio along the south elevation of the house. Ms. Connolly reported that although the proposed patio may be constructed in an attractive manner, its location is extremely close to the lot line. She said that staff can appreciate the intent of the petitioner's request, however, locating a patio 4-feet from the sidewalk is a significant deviation from zoning regulations. The petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards for a Variation listed the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z recommend that the Village Board deny a Variation to allow a 3-foot exterior side yard setback and proposed perimeter fence for the residence at 420 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-18-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Brian and Julie Prempas, 420 N. Fairview, were sworn in and testified that they did not understand the rationale behind the Zoning Code. Ms. Prempas said that it seems to be based on tradition rather than safety. She said they are having a child and want to have a pool. Also, the traffic in the area is heavy with many inexperienced drivers, due to its proximity to the high school. She said that putting the patio behind the breezeway would be a huge safety issue and it would also create a water mnoffproblem. Jim Wallman, 421 N. Forest Avenue, was sworn in and said their back yard abuts the Prempas residence and they have no objection to this project. He said there are just two houses on Memory Lane. Ms. Prempas came back to the podium and showed pictures of properties with similar patios to what they were requesting. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 7:50. Leo Floros said that the Commission had reviewed similar problem cases with corner lots and would support the request due to safety concerns. Matt Sledz suggested a grassy area be used rather than paving the area. Ms. Prempas said she sould rather have a fire pit and barbeque on a paved area. She said they want to do things the right way, but felt they were being penalized by being forthright with their request. Mr. Cotten asked the square footage of the house and Mr. Prempas said it was 1200 s.f. Ms. Prempas added that they both come from large families and have large gatherings that spill out onto the lawn. Matt Sledz said he could support the request if there was a condition that there was a landscape buffer. Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, pointed out that the petitioner was also adding a request for a fence and that its location would require another Variation. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-18-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 The Petitioner clarified that they would rather install landscaping than a fence to screen the patio. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the requested Variation for the sideyard setback with the condition that the patio area be enclosed with 3' bushes, for Case No. PZ-18-03, 420 N. Fairview. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz, NAYS: None Motion approved 4-0. Village Board decision final. At 11:40 p.m, Matt Sledz made motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary