HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2003 P&Z minutes 44-03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-44-03
Hearing Date: November 13, 2003
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1005 Burning Bush Lane
PETITIONER:
David & Lisa Merel
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 29, 2003
PIN #:
03-25-403-033
REQUEST:
Variation to construct an addition in a required setback
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Richard Rogers, Chair
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek
Merrill Cotten
Matthew Sledz
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to
approve the minutes of the October 23 meeting, seconded by Leo Floros. The minutes were approved 3-0, with
one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 9:18, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-44-03, a request for a
Variation to allow a 21' rear yard setback along the south property line as proposed on the Petitioner's site plan
and noted that the request would be P&Z final.
Judy ConnoIly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east side
of Burning Bush Lane, south of Ivy Lane, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements.
The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 District. The
Subject Property has an irregular shape and currently has an attached two-car garage. The Petitioner would like
to remodel the interior of the existing house and add on to it. The Petitioner's plans for the project include
expanding the garage and enlarging the second stow of the house. Due to the irregular shape of the Subject
Property, a portion of the project requires relief from zoning regulations since the garage addition and a section
of the second stow addition would encroach four-feet into the required 25-foot rear yard.
The Petitioner worked extensively with an architect to design an addition that would comply with zoning
regulations. However, the shape of the lot precluded them from arriving at a design that meets setback
regulations. The proposed addition was designed to match the existing building materials so the addition would
appear as original construction. The existing home does not comply with zoning regulations because the
structtu:e encroaches into the required front and exterior yards. However, it is a legal nonconforming situation
and is allowed to remain in its current state. An 1 l-linear foot section of the proposed addition would encroach
4-feet into the required 25-foot rear yard. The remainder of the project would comply with alt other zoning
regulations and the addition would be constructed according to Village Code. The table in the Staff Report
details the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ~44-03
Page 2
In order to approve the request, the P&Z must find that the request meets the standards listed in the Zoning
Ordinance, which relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographic, al conditions of a
specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created bj¢ any
person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the
public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
The Petitioner is proposing to renovate the existing home to create additional living space and to accommodate a
larger vehicle. The Petitioner explored different options for the addition, but found that the irregular shape of
the Subject Property prevents them from adding onto the existing garage in the manner that best suits their living
requirements.
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 25' rear yard. However if the Petitioner were to construct a detached garage,
the Zoning Ordinance would require a 5' setback. The difference in the setback regulations is based on
aesthetics, drainage, and ensuring an adequate buffer between living space. In this case, constructing a detached
garage that met zoning regulations would require more pavement than the amount proposed by the submitted
plan. However, the Petitioner's request for a 3-car garage is more of a convenience than a hardship as defined
by the Zoning Ordinance. While the aesthetics of the proposed addition, including the 3-car garage, would not
be out of character of the neighborhood, the request fails to meet the standards of a hardship as defined by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Although the Subject Property has an irregular shape, a 3-car garage is more of a convenience than a hardship as
defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning
Commission deny a Variation to allow a 21' rear yard setback along the south property line as proposed on the
Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1005 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-44~03. The Planning & Zoning
Commission's decision is final for this case.
Richard Rogers pointed out that this house had been built under Cook County codes and annexed into Mount
Prospect so none of the setbacks actually conformed.
Joe Donnelly ascertained that the petitioner could have a 3-car garage but not in the area they were proposing to
place it. Ms. Connolly said yes, it could not be justified as a hardship where the petitioner wanted the garage.
David Merel was sworn in and said the lot is very irregular in shape. He noted that they had previous plans to
construct a screened in patio but at the time were told that the other side of the house was actually the rear yard.
He said other homes in the neighborhood have added a third car garage so their proposal would be in keeping
with the area.
Mr. Rogers asked how many drivers are in the home and Mr. Merel said just his wife and himself. His son is
1 O-yrs. old and they have one car and one van. Mr. Donnelly asked if he had any intentions of turning garage
space into living space. Mr. Merel said he did not. Mr. Rogers. asked if the neighbor to the south had any
objection to the plan and Mr. Merel said he did not.
Chairperson Rogers closed the hearing at 9:31 pm.
Joe Donnelly made a motion to recommend approval of the requested Variation to allow a 21' rear yard setback
along the south property line as proposed on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1005 Burning Bush
Lane, Case No. PZ-44-03, with the condition that the garage cannot be converted into living space. Keith
Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
Motion was approved 4-0.
AYES: Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, and Youngquist
NAYS: None
lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-44-03
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3
At 9:55 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was
approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Michael Jacobs, AICP
Deputy Director, Community Development
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
H ~PLANr/Plannlng & Zoning COMM~P&Z 2003\Minutes\PZ-44-03 1005 Burning Bush Lane Mere] doc