Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/26/2003 P&Z minutes 22-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-22-03 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: June 26, 2003 Daniel Wille 300 S. HiLusi PIN #: 08-11-217-011 PUBLICATION DATE: June 11,2003 REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Variation (Exterior Side Yard Setback) Richard Rogers, Acting Chairperson Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Daniel Wille 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 8:25, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-22-03, a request for a Variation to construct a deck that would encroach into the exterior side yard setback. Mr. Rogers said the P&Z Commission 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 Milbum and Hi Lusi Avenues, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said that the subject property is rectangular in shape, is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA District on all sides. The lot width of the subject property is 45'2" along the front and flares out to 46'2" at the rear lot line, which is less than the 50-feet required by current Zoning regulations. She noted that the detached garage was built last year and complies with the 20-foot setback regulation. The existing concrete patio encroaches into the required side yard and has a 12'9" setback. She said that the patio is a legal nonconformity and the Zoning Ordinance allows it to be replaced in kind without complying with the Bulk Regulations. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner would like to replace the existing concrete patio and build a deck in the same location. She said that as part of the project, the petitioner would like to add a 10'xl 1' section of deck that would have a 15-foot setback. The Zoning Ordinance allows the existing patio to be replaced in the same location, but would require the new section of the deck to meet current zoning regulations, which include a 20-foot side yard setback. As a result the petitioner is seeking a Variation for a 15-foot setback. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the 15' setback the P&Z has to find that the request meets the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the deck, resulting in a 'new' 15-foot exterior side yard setback, but maintaining existing patio's 12'9" setback for the replacement section. She said that the subject property is rectangular in shape and has a substandard width. The manner in which the house is located on the subject property, as well as the narrow lot width, create challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, a patio could be located along the west elevation of the house and meet the required setbacks. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-22-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 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 circumstances". She said that although the site is restricted by its small lot width and corner location, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore not unique to this property. The petitioner has the option of replacing the existing patio with a deck in the same location, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, and building a new deck that either wraps around the house or a smaller deck that meets the 20-foot setback. Although the proposed deck may be constructed in an attractive manner, the petitioner has alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Also, the proposed new section of deck is more of a convenience. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z deny a Variation to allow a 10'xl 1' deck to encroach 5-feet into the required 20' exterior side yard setback for the residence at 300 S. Hi Lusi Avenue, Case No. PZ-22-03. She said that the P&Z's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers noted that the patio and the house already encroach into the required setback and added that he thought the deck should be extended with the length of the house. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Zoning Ordinance requires new construction to meet current regulations unless the Commission granted a Variation. Merrill Cotten noted that if the patio had been built at the back of the lot 30 or 40 years ago with a 12' setback they could just replace it at this time. Ms. Connolly agreed that it could be replaced now if it had been originally built that way. There was discussion regarding the 'new' deck setback matching the existing 12'9" setback and how the Village Board would need to approve that since a 12'9" setback would be less than 25% of the required 20' setback. Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, said that the petitioners had probably formed their request in this manner because time was of the essence and that the 15' setback request could be approved by the P&Z Commission and would not need to go before the Village Board. Daniel Wille, 300 S. HiLusi, was sworn in and confirmed that he designed the deck so it would be P&Z final. He said that he took some time, researched and read the Code and made that decision in order to get started on the deck before the end of summer. Mr. Wille said he wants to keep the deck low in height, approximately 8-10" from grade. He said the patio is in disrepair and would need to be fixed, but it would be cheaper to replace it with a deck and help to remedy some water ponding issues that currently occur where the patio is located. He mentioned several properties in the neighborhood in the same situation. He said his lot is only 45' wide, whereas if his lot were 50' wide he would not need to ask for a Variation. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:35. Leo Floros said Mr. Wille had presented his case well and would have his support. There was discussion regarding the subject property's narrow lot width and the existing 12'9" setback. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the requested Variation as submitted for Case No. PZ-22-03, 300 S. HiLusi. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, and Sledz, NAYS: None Motion approved 4-0. P&Z decision final. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-22-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 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 Jpfly Conn611y, AICP, Senior Planner~