HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2012 P&Z Minutes 27-12MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ -27 -12
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
PETITIONERS:
PUBLICATION DATE:
PIN NUMBER:
REQUEST:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Hearing Date: December 13, 2012
903 Ironwood Drive
Michael and Margaret A.M. Karnes
October 10, 2012
03 -26 -313- 002 -0000
Variation to Increase the Height for an Accessory Structure
(Detached Garage)
Richard Rogers, Chair
William Beattie
Joseph Donnelly
Tom Fitzgerald
Leo Floros
Jacqueline Hinaber
Keith Youngquist
None
Consuelo Andrade, Senior Planner
Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development
Margaret Karnes, Michael Karnes
Chairman Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Ms. Hinaber made a motion, seconded by Mr.
Donnelly to approve the minutes of the October 25, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting; the minutes
Nvere approved 5 -0 Nvith Mr. Beattie and Mr. Youngquist abstaining. After hearing two (2) previous cases,
Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ- 27 -12, 903 Ironwood Drive at 7:57 p.m.
Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners for PZ -27 -12 Nvere seeking a Variation to increase the height of an accessory
structure for the property located at 903 Ironwood Drive.
Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the south side of Ironwood and on the north side of
Kensington Road. The property currently contains a single - family residence Nvith related improvements. The
Subject Property is zoned R -1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R -1 District to the Nvest, north, and
east. The Subject Property borders the I1 Limited Industrial District to the south.
Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners proposed to demolish the existing detached garage and construct a new
detached garage. Per the Petitioners' plans, the new garage Nvould measure twentN- -one (21) feet Nvide by twenty -
six (26) feet deep.
Ms. Andrade said the elevation plans indicated that the garage would be constructed out of vinyl siding and
measure thirteen (13) feet three (3) inches tall, as measured from the grade to the midpoint of the roof. The
Zoning Code limits the height of detached garages to a maximum of twelve (12) feet in height. Therefore, the
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -27 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 1 of 4
Petitioners Nvere seeking a Variation to increase the height from twelve (12) feet to thirteen (13) feet and three (3)
inches. The garage Nvould include a dormer and sliding doors on the east elevation.
Ms. Andrade referenced the folloNving table:
Ms. Andrade stated the table compared the Petitioners' proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's
bulls requirements. The proposed detached garage Nvould comply Nvith the Code requirements, with the exception
of the height. The proposed drivewa -,T expansion as shoNsn on the site plan, however, Nvould exceed the maximum
Nvidth alloNved. The site plan indicated the new driveNs aN- Nvould be as Nvide as the existing non - conforming
driveway and narrow down to twenty -one (21) feet at the front elevation. The Petitioners Nvere not seeking a
Variation to increase the Nvidth of the driveway and Nvould be required to revise the driveway Nsdth to a maximum
of twentN- -three (23) feet.
Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and
include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of the
findings include:
A hardship due 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;
Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
Protection of the public Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character
Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners mentioned in their application that the thirteen (13) foot and three (3) inch tall
garage is necessary for storage space. The detached garage Nvould provide a comfortable space for storage as they
do not have a true basement or usable attic in their home. A detached garage Nvith a larger footprint is not
desirable as it Nvould reduce the yard space. Additionally, the Petitioners stated that the taller garage Nvould block
some of the noise and light emitted from the industrial buildings located on the south side of Kensington Road.
Ms. Andrade said per the Petitioners, the proposed garage Nvould not alter the character of the neighborhood as
there are two (2) properties (701 and 805 Ironwood) in the neighborhood Nvith tall garages. Staff researched the
properties and found that the approved elevations drawings indicate a twelve (12) foot height and an eleven (11)
foot height respectively, as measured to the midpoint.
Ms. Andrade stated Staff can appreciate the Petitioners' need for storage while maintaining a larger yard space,
there Nvere no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that Nvould not exist on other properties. The
need for storage and ample yard space do not constitute physical hardships unique to this property to support a
Variation. A detached garage can be constructed to meet code and still serve the Petitioners' needs for storage.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -27 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 4
Code Requirements
Existing
Proposed
Garage Setbacks:
Front
Min. 30'
91'
99'
Interior (W)
Min. 5'
6.26'
S'
Interior (E)
Min. 5'
24'
39'
Rear
Min. 10'
21.4'
10'
Size
Max. 672 sq.ft.
741 sq.ft.
546 sq.ft.
Roof Pitch
Min. 3:12
UnknoNsn
6:12 & 10%2:12
Height
Max. 12'
UnknoNsn
13' -3"
F.A.R
Max. 50%
22.8%
24.8%
Lot Coverage
Max. 45%
35.6%
35.6%
Driveway Width
Max. 23'
30'
21' -30'
Ms. Andrade stated the table compared the Petitioners' proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence District's
bulls requirements. The proposed detached garage Nvould comply Nvith the Code requirements, with the exception
of the height. The proposed drivewa -,T expansion as shoNsn on the site plan, however, Nvould exceed the maximum
Nvidth alloNved. The site plan indicated the new driveNs aN- Nvould be as Nvide as the existing non - conforming
driveway and narrow down to twenty -one (21) feet at the front elevation. The Petitioners Nvere not seeking a
Variation to increase the Nvidth of the driveway and Nvould be required to revise the driveway Nsdth to a maximum
of twentN- -three (23) feet.
Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and
include seven (7) specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The summary of the
findings include:
A hardship due 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;
Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
Protection of the public Nvelfare, other property, and neighborhood character
Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners mentioned in their application that the thirteen (13) foot and three (3) inch tall
garage is necessary for storage space. The detached garage Nvould provide a comfortable space for storage as they
do not have a true basement or usable attic in their home. A detached garage Nvith a larger footprint is not
desirable as it Nvould reduce the yard space. Additionally, the Petitioners stated that the taller garage Nvould block
some of the noise and light emitted from the industrial buildings located on the south side of Kensington Road.
Ms. Andrade said per the Petitioners, the proposed garage Nvould not alter the character of the neighborhood as
there are two (2) properties (701 and 805 Ironwood) in the neighborhood Nvith tall garages. Staff researched the
properties and found that the approved elevations drawings indicate a twelve (12) foot height and an eleven (11)
foot height respectively, as measured to the midpoint.
Ms. Andrade stated Staff can appreciate the Petitioners' need for storage while maintaining a larger yard space,
there Nvere no unique conditions that exist on the Subject Property that Nvould not exist on other properties. The
need for storage and ample yard space do not constitute physical hardships unique to this property to support a
Variation. A detached garage can be constructed to meet code and still serve the Petitioners' needs for storage.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -27 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 2 of 4
Therefore, the alleged hardships presented in this case are directIv related to the property owners own interest in
the property and not by the Village Code.
Ms. Andrade said the Variation request to increase the height of an accessory structure (detached garage) does not
meet the standards for Variations contained in Section 12.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on this
analysis, Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt Staff findings in the Staff report as
the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the motion as listed in the report.
Chairman Rogers confirmed Nvith Staff that the Nvidth of the driveway Nvas not part of the Variation request; the
oniv zoning request Nvas the height of the structure. He also asked Staff if they checked lot coverage since the
Petitioner Nvas proposing to install a patio door adjacent to the garage. Ms. Andrade said the lot coverage Nvas not
an issue. If the Petitioner chose to install a patio adjacent to the proposed sliding door; they could as long as they
do not exceed the amount of lot coverage for the zoning district. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner is alloNved up
to forty -five (45) percent coverage; Nvith the proposed improvements they Nvould only cover thirty -six (36)
percent.
There Nvas discussion about calculating the midpoint of the roof for the proposed garage.
Mr. Youngquist asked Staff to go over the existing site conditions. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioners removed
the screen porch and there Nvas just the existing garage at 528 square feet. Mr. Youngquist Nvas originally
concerned Nvith a patio being built adjacent to the sliding glass door along Nvith a porch. Ms. Andrade said the
Petitioners Nvould be restricted to 672 square feet for the garage. She stated the Petitioner Nvould be required to
revise the site plan to indicate any proposed patio areas. The site plan did indicate the existing paved area next to
the garage Nvould be removed. Ms. Andrade said the concrete slab still remains where the screen porch Nvas, but
this Nvould also be removed.
Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioners, Margaret and Michael Karnes, 903 Ironwood, Mount Prospect, Illinois.
Mrs. Karnes said they Nvere not planning on installing a porch on the side of the garage that Nvas previously
discussed. Chairman Rogers asked Nvhat the purpose Nvas for the sliding glass door. Mr. Karnes stated that the
sliding glass door Nvas purchased when they previously had the porch. The door Nvas leftover and they planned on
including it Nvith the new garage. The Petitioners both agreed that if the sliding glass door Nvas creating an issue
for the Variation, they could remove it from their proposal.
Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioners could loNver the roof to get within twelve (12) feet. Mrs. Karnes said
that the dormer Nvould be affected if the roof Nvas loNvered. The design Nvas put together Nvith the dormer to allow
for additional storage space and light in the area.
The Petitioners discussed the sizes of other garages in the area. Mrs. Karnes said that they Nvere not trying to
build the biggest garage in the neighborhood; they Nvere just looking for dry usable storage space. Mr. Beattie
confirmed that the Petitioners have a split level Nvith very minimum storage space. Mr. Karnes also mentioned
that they do not have a usable attic either.
Mrs. Karnes provided the Commission Nvith a copy of a letter in support from the neighbor to the Nvest of the
Subject Property. She also stated that the neighbor to the east Nvas in attendance at the hearing. Mrs. Karnes did
talk to the surrounding neighbors who Nvere okay Nvith the proposal. There Nvas additional discussion Nvhere the
proposed garage Nvould line up Nvith the neighbors' properties.
Mrs. Karnes said that it Nvas not the intention to keep the thirty (30) foot driveway that they inherited. The current
asphalt is deteriorating and Nvould be removed and replaced that Nvould conform to code at twenty -three (23) feet.
Mr. Youngquist discussed the garage height and size and did not have any objections to the request.
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -27 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 3 of 4
Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners hoNy long that they have lived in the home. Mrs. Karnes stated six (6)
years.
Chairman Rogers asked if there Nyas anyone else in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the
public portion of the case at 8:15 p.m. and brought the discussion back to the board.
Mr. Donnelly made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to approve a Variation to increase the height for an
accessory structure (detached garage) from tvyelve (12) feet to thirteen (13) feet and three (3) inches, as shoN -,n in
the Petitioners elevations, for the residence located at 903 IronNyood Drive, Case No. PZ- 27 -12.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Fitzgerald, Floros, Hinaber, Youngquist, Rogers
NAYS: None
The motion Nyas approved 7 -0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision Nyas final for this case.
Mr. Donnellv made a motion, seconded by Mr. Beattie to adjourn at 8:16 p.m. The motion Nyas approved by a
voice vote and the meeting Nyas adjourned.
Rvan Kast, Community Development
Administrative Assistant
Richard Rogers, Chair PZ -27 -12
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 13, 2012 Page 4 of 4