Loading...
O-23-04 06/14/04VILLAGE OF LEMONT ORDINANCE NO.0 ' 'U VARIATIONS TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE R -4 DISTRICT FROM 40' TO 20' FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE, TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM 10' TO 5' AND TO EXCEED THE 30% REAR YARD LOT COVERAGE UP TO 35% FOR A 24' X 24' DETACHED GARAGE (1141 McCarthy Road) ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT THIS 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2004 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, Cook, DuPage, and Will Counties, Illinois this 14th day of May, 2004. ORDINANCE NO. 6 -3 °6) 7" VARIATIONS TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE R -4 DISTRICT FROM 40' TO 20' FOR AN ADDITION TO THE HOUSE, TO THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM 10' TO 5' AND TO EXCEED THE 30% REAR YARD LOT COVERAGE UP TO 35% FOR A 24' X 24' DETACHED GARAGE (1141 McCarthy Road) WHEREAS, Vincent and Kim Zajec, hereinafter referred to as "the Petitioners," are the owners of a .29 acre parcel, hereinafter referred to as "the subject property," located at 1141 McCarthy in Lemont, Illinois and legally described in "Exhibit A "; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner is seeking relief to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance to reduce the front yard setback requirement in the R -4 Single - Family Detached Residence District from forty feet (40') to twenty feet (20') in order to construct an addition to the house; reduce the rear yard setback for accessory structures from ten feet (10') to five feet (5'); and to exceed the rear yard lot coverage from 30% to 35% for a 24' x 24' detached garage, pursuant to Section VII. E.7.a.(1), VII.E.7.a.(3), and V.G.4.b.; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Lemont, Illinois (the "Village ") did heretofore commence and conduct Public Hearings on May 3rd and May 18, 2004, and approved a variation of the front yard setback requirement in an R -4 Single- Family Detached Residence District, a variation to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory structures, and a variation to exceed the rear yard lot coverage for a detached garage, by unanimous vote; and WHEREAS, a notice of the aforesaid Public Hearing was made in the manner provided by law and was published in the Lemont Reporter /Met a newspaper of general circulation within the Village; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Lemont, after a public hearing as required by law, approved the three aforementioned variations; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have determined that the best interests of the Village will be served by approving the variations as described herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, DuPAGE, AND WILL, ILLINOIS: Section 1: Front Yard Setback. A variation of the Lemont Zoning Ordinance, Section 7.E.7.a.(1) is granted to reduce the front yard setback requirement in the R -4 Single- Family Detached Residence District from forty feet (40') to twenty feet (20') in order to construct an addition to the house; the building elevations for the house and site plan are attached as "Exhibit B" of the ordinance; Section 2: Rear Yard Setback for Accessory Structures. A variation to Lemont Zoning Ordinance Section 7.E.7.a.(3) is granted to reduce the rear yard setback for accessory structures from ten feet (10') to five feet (5'); and Section 3: Rear Yard Lot Coverage for Detached Garage. A variation to the Lemont Zoning Ordinance Section V.G.4.b. is granted to exceed the rear yard lot coverage from 30% to 35% for a 24' x 24' detached garage. Section 4: Condition of Approval. The petitioner shall obtain a building or occupancy permit within one year of the effective date of this ordinance or the variation shall be null and void.. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, DUPAGE AND WILL, ILLINOIS, ON THIS 14th day of June, 2004. Debby Blatzer Peter Coules Brian Reaves Steven Rosendahl Ron Stapleton Jeanette Virgilio Attest: AYES NAYS PASSED ABSENT ✓ ✓ Approved by me this 14`h day of June, 2004. IAZ A, Vil age Pr CHARLENE SMOLLEN, Village Clerk dent H: \ORDINANC\ LYNN'S \2003ORDS\I 14 I McCarthy.wpd EXHIBIT "A" The property is commonly known as 1141 McCarthy Road and is legally described as follows: OF THE WEST 54.9 FEET OF THE EAST 87.9 FEET OF LOT 37 (MEASURED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 37) IN BECKER'S SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 1880 AS DOCUMENT NO. 288887 IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Legend rnu Plat of Survev au I O (101V Set 50') 1(e. orJ Dimmed un Feuec Lt — _ Lt. - - -- ./ OF THE WEST 54.9 FEET OF THE EAST 87.9 FEET OF LOT 37 (MEASURED ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 3711N BECKER'S SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 28. TOWNSHIP 37 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17. 1880 AS DOCUMENT NO. 288887 IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. NOTE: t °' NC TH CGVC LO' J7,,,. GAN f.O.'1 t036.5 04N 0JN. +0 .o,, (54.901) I'OWh:!( I'OLI: I I'. = 1 ICON 1'1 I'I': I1T. = BLACK 1 (3• CW, = CONCI■ I('I'h: W11.K Ct'. COINCIZETI.. I'01■CI1 LOT re 7 J C • • • , • • • • .0 •' • •4 9; 24' N� 37 33' 1' r✓.rei'n•Od C. • Li) CON � O�S NEC, (Sr� J,; MIEN B.S 9m No. < \ 75.1641 SURV Staieofllllnuia } SS Cuunly of Du page (or, w'T) This is to certify that I. Allen D Carr.Ju,, 311111111013 lick:meted Lard Surveyor, has•e surveyed Ure p(opcny as described hereon anti that Urc anneacJ Plat is u correct and true rcpresc;Otwn thereof. Signed anJ Scaled at 1Vhcatou. Illm.n, this 1 1111 fly i a,......1.0.444.4.4.4Iluruu Laud Surveyor No 352551 Building Iucatcd as shown hereon Uns 1111 day of Jury , A.U. 1993 By 1'46 4' J . Land Sun oyor No 35•2551 FounJatiun located as shown Ieront Uns .lay of D. Susses.. No 35 2531 Pr u�l:uu II la ANT ONOPOULOS, VIR TEL 3 GROSELA, 1' C. train: r Drown Ly, 93 day u( Jon ,A D 1993 By fLAJ0 sIJiiVUYlf1G Jun 11. 19 TSR NOTES A11 dotint.:I shown llttnoo sic in feet and Decimal parts thereof. Cunq•ar. the Legal Dcsc npuon, Bud)., Lines, and Decd, Too: lu,u ransc Policy or Talc Commitment. Casements as shown helam WW1 your Cuusult the local auUtunucs fur IJJUIntJ( setback lines and restrlct,,ms not shown hereon. Compare all survey polIILI and report any Jlscrepencies Immediately. Comuh utility sunq•anles and munislpahGes prior Ua the start Jt any 0onslru0Gon. 11,, wn .n•.uutc ,1•.1.114 CI (1.1111 s,s s,l nrs:nurcu(Orb ,nuts hac.nl LANDMARK ASSOCIATES, INC. P.O. Box 1.124, La Grange Park. IL 60525 26W5131 Parkway Drive• Winfield. IL 60190 35' -)OLYTI-‘ LZ C�') A.) 7, 4._ Malt "B" iv eC 4RTNY A13. ELF ✓19TIV/J pc.90dLL 7 " /WY L S141,✓t- /✓E1,Ai9 cJ•w.OauaS 36 yR . s /s,.v6 L ES LocJE,Q A.E 4,1 y c✓, ,)voc. -'S � 3 0 � 2 5 7 3 3 8 y 3y I - 338 Um ce. o r 533- 3 384 1sr .12d �7 v04- Si.) i Exhibit "B" l0, y %f ST. c Ft �171c'h l IJOL!41<T <, 3v pt ✓ A-7'4 Jj4 / A)G- w' I (k 44.4s ,OEG.< Aawele_ &EYEL 4 Oft LA) 1+JlO0 w —� 3� 1- 3.34 V, vi ee (636)257- 334 ©r 533- 33£x4 �m STAFF REPORT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Prepared by David Orrico, Village Planner GENERAL CASEFILE INFORMATION Case Number Commission Meeting Date Petitioner Request(s) Location Parcel Number(s) Size Street Frontage(s) (Corner Lot) Current Zoning Contiguous Zoning & Land Use 24.12 May 3, 2004 Vincent & Kimberly Zajec Variations to the front yard setback in the R -4 District from 40' to 20' for an addition to the house, to the rear yard setback for accessory structures from 10' to 0' and to exceed the 30% rear yard lot coverage up to 45% for accessory structures 1141 McCarthy Road 22- 28- 101 -012 Approximately 6,600 square feet McCarthy Road, approx. 60 feet (south) Fourth Street, approx. 150 feet (east) R -4 Single Family Detached Residence District North: R -4 Single Family Detached Residence District (Lemont Park District) East: R -4 Single Family Detached Residence District South: R -4 Single Family Detached Residence District West: R -4 Single Family Detached Residence District Exhibits 1. Location Map 2. Plat of Survey 3. Site Plan and Profile of Improvements 4. Ordinance #0 -15 -98 (granting front yard setback variation from McCarthy Rd) I. CHARACTER OF AREA Generally, residential land use is dominant along McCarthy Road within the Village of Lemont. McCarthy Road is considered an arterial road because of the number of traffic trips that are generated on the route each day. Mainly, commuters use this route to travel northwest in the morning and southeast in the evening through Lemont. Because of this, McCarthy Road is considered a "major" road by ordinance. However, the appearance of McCarthy Road may suggest otherwise. McCarthy Road is a two -lane road (one lane for each direction of travel) and speed limits range from 50 mph at the outskirts of the Village down to 20 mph near the subject property and into downtown. A majority of the houses along McCarthy are well short of the 40' minimum setback requirement and are considered "grandfathered" into the ordinance *. *The Zoning Ordinance was amended on November 27, 1989 to enforce greater setbacks for structures along major roadways. Any new improvements thereafter are required to comply with the ordinance or be subject to a variation review. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The homeowners of 1141 McCarthy Road are requesting three (3) variations from the R -4 District. The first request requires a variation in the front yard setback from 40' to 20' in order to construct an addition to the existing house on the subject property. A minimum of 40' is required for all setbacks along major roads. Also, part of the application are two variation requests for the existing detached garage in the rear yard of the subject property. The variations will result in an already non - conforming structure that is located at the rear property line (0' setback) to be expanded along the rear property line as well as exceed the maximum 30% lot coverage requirement in the rear yard to 45 %. PUBLIC RESPONSE As of this writing, staff has not received any comments in response to the public notices provided in this case. The Park District inquired about the nature of the variations being requested. IL VARIATION STANDARDS (Zoning Ordinance, Sec. XVIII.H.4a -c) Findings of fact will be presented by staff after public testimony has been given and then analyzed by the following: 1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return: • (Can this site perform under the current regulations in this ordinance ?) 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances: • (Are there unique circumstances, not of the owner's ability to control, that result in difficulty in compliance to the ordinance with the proposed use or structure ?) 3. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality: • (Does the result of the variation(s) impact the local neighborhood ?) In summary the application of the regulations of the zoning ordinance to the subject property would result in practical difficulties or a hardship, considering the following criteria: (Note: Responses to the following will be presented and made part of the public record after the findings of fact have been presented by staff and after discussion of said findings by the public and Zoning Board of Appeals) 1. There are particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographic conditions of the specific property; 2. There are conditions unique to the subject property that are generally not applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification; 3. The practical difficulty is not self - imposed; 4. Granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 5. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the pubic safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood; III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (to be presented after the summary to the findings of fact) Staff's preliminary recommendation is to support the variation request to the front yard setback requirement in the R- 4 District from 40' to 20' as the proposed addition will be compatible with the existing residential stock as well as replicate existing setback appearances that exist close to McCarthy Road. Staff does not recommend expanding the detached garage at its current location as it is considered a non - conforming structure with a 0' setback from the rear property line or the permission to exceed the 30% lot coverage requirement to 45 %. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of a 10' setback from the rear property line. Some separation should be considered to relieve the non - conformity in at least the expansion part of the garage. A variation to the 10' rear yard setback may be considered as the Park District property is adjacent rather than a single - family residence. Disclaimer: This recommendation is subject to change if the results of the findings of fact & public testimony contradict the validation of the initial request. SOOT z eaoT tan its G aP`J 'fin, 'dy� VH0 iV J+.J �PJV 11� 3 aam LOOT NOT amt aom Tam 1 3 $ 8 SENON DRIV • e "1T KIT 11 1 8 1 1 Ogge )13SV 1V1"1 � 9 � 1 Ptz Li t III g': rn� 133ei1S INSMZ3SWIQ.1 1I$I I 111Fkl l I David Orrico, Planner Village of Lemont 630 - 257 -1595 630 - 257 -1598 (f) Memo Village of Lemont Community Development Department To: Zoning Board of Appeals Frone David Orrico, Planner Date: May 14, 2004 Re Continuation on Case 24.12, 1141 McCarthy Road On May 3, 2004 the Zoning Board of Appeals continued Case 24.12, 1141 McCarthy Road to the May 18th meeting to allow the applicant the opportunity to provide additional details to the proposed architectural plans for the house on the subject property. The addition to the existing house footprint will result in approximately 50' of frontage along Fourth Street and 35' of frontage along McCarthy Road (35' x 50' envelope). Changes to the revised site plan will result in the following variation requests: 1. A variation to the front yard setback from 40' to 20' along major roadways for the house. 2. A variation to exceed the 30% lot coverage for a detached garage. The revised dimensions of the addition to the existing detached garage will result in a 24' x 27' size garage or 648 square feet. Thirty percent of the rear yard area is 494 square feet. This will result in 39% lot coverage of the rear yard. (9% deviation) 3. A variation to allow a 0' setback for the addition to the existing detached garage on the rear property line. The minimum setback for accessory structures should be 10 feet from the rear property line. STAFF RECOMMENDATION (to be presented after the summary to the findings of fact in the attached staff report, dated 05.03.04) Staffs preliminary recommendation is to support the variation request to the front yard setback requirement in the R-4 District from 40' to 20' as the proposed addition will be compatible with the existing residential stock as well as replicate existing setback appearances that exist dose to McCarthy Road. Staff does not recommend expanding the detached garage at its current location as it is considered a non - conforming structure with a 0' setback from the rear property line. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum of a 10' setback from the rear property line. Some separation should be considered to relieve the non - conformity in at least the expansion part of the garage. A variation to the 10' rear yard setback may be considered as the Park District property is adjacent rather than a single - family residence. The 30% lot coverage standard should be maintained. However, the ordinance does allow 660 square foot garages or a size of 30% of the rear yard whichever is less. Attachments: a. Revised Elevation Plans & Site Plan b. ZBA Staff Report, dated 05.03.04 c. (Excerpt) Minutes from the ZBA meeting on 05.03.04 1 MINUTES EXCERPT, MAY 18 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Case #24.12 — 1141 McCarthy Ms. Murphy made a motion, seconded by Mr. Schubert, to reopen case #24.12, 1141 McCarthy. Mr. Orrico said the case was heard on May 3, and the applicant was asked to provide additional detail for his request to construct an addition on to his house on the property. Mr. Orrico said they are still seeking variations as follows: first, a setback from a major road, which would be 40' to 20'; and second, a variation for exceeding the 30% maximum of lot coverage for the garage to 45 %. The garage measures 24' x 27', which equates to 648 square feet. The applicant is 9% over. Mr. Orrico said there is also zero foot setback for the garage. The current garage is on the rear property line. The applicant would like to extend the rear 0 elevation down the property line. Mr. Orrico said that is all he had to present. Mr. Miklos said at the last meeting we asked applicant to come back with renderings of the house. We asked the applicant to reconsider the square footage for the garage. He did first, but the second was the same. Mr. Miklos asked what would be acceptable. Mr. Orrico said 22' by 22'. Ms. Murphy said it is still at zero setback. We talked about preference to setback, meeting 1/2 way because of the park's unusual willing to bend if some setback would be important. Mr. Miklos said the rendering fits into the neighborhood; it would be an upgrade. Ms. Murphy agreed. Mr. Schubert said he would like to hear the plan of redoing the foundation. He said he did no0t know what square footage they could agree on. He said the elevations look fine, height consistent with no exception. Mr. Bruce said he had no questions at this time. Mr. Vince Zajec, 1141 McCarthy Road, said he has lived in Lemont for 11 years. Mr. Miklos said you heard some concerns and this is what you came back with. Mr. Zajec said he changed the drawing and it was a little bit of odd shape following the angle of the road. He said he made it more square and consistent with the immediate neighborhood. You already touched on the Park District that said it would not affect anyone's view. Mr. Schubert asked if Mr. Zajec had plans on tearing down the garage and building. Mr. Zajec said he would wind up having to move garage back ten feet and losing ten feet of the backyard. He said he doesn't even know if they are sure of leaving part of the current structure and adding to it. Mr. Miklos said it sounds like a loophole if you leave one wall, you can take others down. Mr. Orrico said we do not want to expand non - conformity. Ms. Murphy said she is looking at the overhead perspective and design. She said five feet is unique to get around your garage -that is a thought to compromise and still achieve your building, and not lose additional yard space. Mr. Zajec said 24' x 27' is not inordinately big, it is standard two and a half garage, given a 1/2 foot or so. Mr. Schubert said if it is 22' right now, he can't add any other depth to it, because of the non - conforming lot line. Mr. Schubert said the petitioner must stay at 22 feet, but the width can be adjusted. Mr. Miklos told the petitioner he can extend the south wall out, ideally at that point, and we are saying if you are taking the garage down, we want relief from the zero lot line- - maybe not the ten feet as in the code, but a happy medium for backyard space. Mr. Zajec asked if he could extend along the northern line where zero is now. Mr. Orrico said that is subject to variation. Ms. Murphy said other than that it is still going to exceed the square footage. Address this or tighten the specs. Mr. Miklos said if we moved five feet to south and let you extend by two feet, 24' x 22' gives a compromise. Ms. Murphy said it will be less than 9 %, which is what he is now, and everyone will be happy. Mr. Teddy said 494 feet is the break point, or 32 %. Ms. Murphy said then he gets five feet on the property line. Mr. Zajec said he is not gaining much. Mr. Schubert said not on the interior property, but it is still yours. He said he does not want to extend on a non- conforming building. Ms. Murphy said the loss is space in the yard, but opposed to having a new garage, it is not a bad opportunity to upgrade the whole property. Mr. Orrico said 24 deep by 22 wide Mr. Miklos said the depth is east to west. Mr. Schubert said if it is 22' wide and the applicant is looking for 27' - -if he moved five feet off of the lot line, he doesn't lose anything in the interior, but gains five feet in the lot line. Mr. Orrico said if he comes out to 22' x 24', he doesn't need a variation. The existing structure is there. 2 Mr. Miklos said if he widens by two feet because of it being grandfathered in on the zero lot line. Ms. Murphy said we would rather have five feet and maybe compromise on the other end instead of the zero lot line. Mr. Miklos said the footprint thrown out - -22 x 24, is it a workable footprint? Mr. Zajec said it was ok, but not what he wanted to do. He said having the other feet would be 21.5 feet. Mrs. Zajec said they have two vehicles which are very large. We are eliminating sheds with garage -she said their only goal is to have more room back there. Mr. Miklos asked if the sheds would come down. Mr. Zajec said just one. Mr. Schubert said 24' width gives you enough for four feet on one and two on the other, depth wise, if you are taking out one old shed. Mr. Zajec said the other moved more to the south so it would not interfere with the line cover. Mr. Miklos said they cannot give the full 27 by 24 as requested. Mr. Zajec said we are looking at 22 x 24. Mr. Schubert asked Mr. Teddy to recalculate the figures they were discussing if 24' x 24' off of the lot line with a 5 foot setback in rear. Mr. Teddy said then it is 35 %. Mr. Zajec said that is acceptable. Mr. Miklos asked if anyone else wished to speak. Mr. Orrico said we will do the three first questions to determine if the request is valid or not. 1. Can the site perform under current regulations? Mr. Orrico said a 40' setback makes difficult with the current 25' setback. The setback was in place prior to 1989 (why McCarthy homes are like that. It presents a challenge. 2. Are the unique circumstances out of the petitioner's control? Mr. Orrico said the existing home with amending requesting farther, does infringe on rights of the homeowner. It has been there since 1969. He said he does not feel it is unique on the garage request. We do want to note that a park is behind there. 3 3. Will it alter the locale or neighborhood? Mr. Orrico said the garage is next to the park, and they phoned and do not have any problems with this request. They feel that the house is consistent with the homes, especially traveling to Stephen Street are much closer. He said staff feels the impact is minimal. Mr. Miklos reviewed the five criteria that must be affirmative. 1. There are particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographic conditions of the specific property; Ms. Murphy mentioned the shape of the lot. 2. There are conditions unique to the subject property that are generally not applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification; 3. The practical difficulty is not self- imposed; 4. Granting the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other properties or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; 5. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, or substantially increase congestion in public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the pubic safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. Mr. Schubert made a motion, seconded by Mr. Bruce to close the public hearing. Roll call. Ayes: Bruce, Miklos, Murphy, Schubert Motion carried. Ms. Murphy made a motion, seconded by Mr. Schubert, to approve case #24.12 - 1141 McCarthy Road, with the following conditions: a. The garage is 24' x 24', five feet off the rear yard setback; b. The plans for home are actually as submitted with the square vs. odd shape. c. We approve variation for the front yard setback. Roll call. Ayes: Bruce, Miklos, Murphy, Schubert Motion carried. Mr. Teddy said 24' x 24' garage technically has 35% coverage in the ordinance, and a five foot rear setback. Ms. Murphy said the petitioner should submit a drawing as expected. Mr. Miklos told the petitioner that Planning staff would advise them of the Village Board meeting dates. ### end Excerpt of May 3, 2004 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting: Case 24.12 —1141 McCarthy Ms. Predey made a motion, seconded by Ms. Murphy, to open case #24.12 — 1141 McCarthy, three variations. Mr. Orrico said the petitioners before you are Vincent and Kimberly Zajec, and they are asking for three variations. The address is 1141 McCarthy, and this is a two lane road, highly traveled, with speed limits ranging from 50 mph to 20 mph where it merges with Stephen Street. This property is near the 35 mph range. Because this is a major street, we have a 40 foot front yard setback. Mr. Orrico said the first variation is to apply a 20' setback off of McCarthy Road to construct an addition. Mr. Orrico gave a brief history of an ordinance amended in 1989, when they were permitted, but after 1989, the front setback had to be 40 feet. There is a 50% decrease in the front setback for the addition to the house, and two variations for the existing detached garage, considered non - conforming. Mr. Orrico said the rear of the garage sits on the property line — so expanding the garage would mean extending the zero setback down the line, therefore exceeding the regulations. He said that is the second variation, and the third is exceeding the maximum lot coverage of 30% to 45 %. We have received no comments about this or in response to the applicant's notice; we did get a call from the Park District inquiring about the nature of the application. Mr. Orrico said that was all he had. Mr. Miklos asked if there were any questions for Mr. Orrico or the Zajecs. Mr. Erber said he didn't see anything on the plat of survey; the front entrance will be more off of Fourth Street. Mr. Zajec said not necessarily; it is just a door, there are no awnings and the house looks the same from either side. Mr. Miklos asked if the petitioner had anything else to add to Mr. Orrico's report? Mr. Zajec said he pretty much covered it. On the west side, the expansion is about twelve feet, and about, 25 to 30 on the south side, but that design is not in stone, either. Mr. Zajec said he needs someone to draw it up and perhaps add something, like a turret at the corner, so it won't be ugly. He said these are just rough estimates to see if this will fly at all. He said he didn't want to invest a great deal of money if there is no chance for success. Ms. Murphy said if she is looking at the front on McCarthy, the addition is going south, but on the west, no change? Mr. Miklos said before we go further, we need much more detail to the house. This is just a rough hand sketch. Ms. Murphy agreed and said it would help to see what is going to go there, although we should talk about anything we are not in favor of as well. Mr. Orrico said the proposed addition to the south of the house will appear in a trapezoid shaped design as it will run parallel with McCarthy Road at a twenty foot front yard setback. Mr. Miklos said right now it is square, and we will run it at the angle, but we don't know what the side facing south will look like. We will have to take a look at something like that. Mr. Schubert asked if it will stick out. He said if you looked across the street, it would be probably ten to fifteen feet to the end. He said he didn't have a problem in front; any objection of his would be on the lot line further to the west, which he does not like. Mr. Erber said a couple of years ago, someone wanted to do a non - conforming there, and he is not sure if it was a good idea. Ms. Murphy asked if Mr. Zajec was taking the garage down? Mr. Erber said no, he will use the foundation. The one behind the house would be eliminated. Mr. Schubert asked the depth of the house there and was told 22 feet. He asked how far back the petitioner wanted to go, and Mr. Zajec said another six feet Mr. Erber said he didn't think anyone is against his improving his home, but we need to see a clearer drawing. Mr. Zajec said it was not cheap to do that. Mr. Teddy said there is a lot of risk in a variation case, but if the direction from the Zoning Board is to do more detail, the petitioner will provide it. Mr. Miklos said they don't have a problem with the variation on addition to house, but they would like a little more detail. He said he is not in favor of extending the zero setback to make that larger, and would probably not favor the detached garage. He said they are all supporting the house, but the house needs more detail provided. Mr. Schubert said they are not against increasing the garage to make it larger, ten feet wider, but not along the zero setback. Mr. Murphy said more towards the house. That is accounting for the excessive lot coverage. Ms. Predey asked Mr. Zajec to draw what it is going to look like. Ms. Murphy said the fence will stay. Mr. Schubert said he knows we will not vote on this, but just as a feeling, he would not be opposed to the addition of the garage going to the south, and the house would be alright. Mr. Miklos said they are in favor and just need additional information. He said to do a drawing of the south elevation and staff will assist with that. Mr. Teddy said do a preliminary with elevation of height width, placement of windows and doors, and materials. He said he thinks it would be a no vote to the zero lot line expansion. Mr. Teddy indicated if the whole garage came down, they would have to have a minimum setback; it would have to conform to code for accessory setback, three feet off the side and ten from the rear. Mr. Zajec asked if he can not put it back where it was. Mr. Teddy said correct. (page 2 of 3) Mr. Schubert asked if he took down the garage, and left that frame wall standing on that north foundation, the 2 x 4 structure, that is still structure he can add on to. Mr. Teddy said if it is a single wall, it is not less than 50 %. He said the rule is maintenance and repair, re- roofing, doors and windows are alright, but if he took all but the north wall down, it would be more than 50% loss. Mr. Schubert said in all honesty, nothing would be built behind there. If he wanted to tear it down and put another one up it would be very unique and make an improvement. Mr. Erber said we might have a problem with the size. Mr. Teddy talked about various ways to improve the garage and not increase the non - conformity. He said you cannot extend along a lot line. We would have to find the break point between expansion and 30% coverage. Ms. Dabauras asked for the rule on the size of garage. Mr. Orrico said maximum 30% of the lot. She asked how big is the garage Mr. Zajec wants to put up. Mr. Zajec said 27' x 24' or something like that —he does not have exact numbers. Mr. Orrico said 25' x 30' would be the proposed size, which is 750 square feet and exceeds the 30% lot coverage rule. Mr. Teddy said 22' 25" x 22' 25" is the limit- -494 square feet without the variation. That is a two car garage. You could do that with a permit. Mr. Schubert said that gives a little extra, to allow storage. Mr. Zajec said that was the idea with the extra depth. Clean up. Mr. Schubert asked for the dimension of the front trapezoid. Mr. Orrico said on the Fourth Street side, a thirty foot addition; the west side is twelve feet. Mr. Schubert said we would need materials also. Mr. Miklos said we would be forcing more detail. Mr. Miklos made a motion, seconded by Mr. Schubert, to continue, Case #24.12, to May 18th 2004 in order to allow the petitioner to bring further details. Voice vote. All ayes. Motion carries. Mr. Orrico said staff will read the findings of fact after the staff report and public testimony is heard. After any questions are answered, staff and the Zoning Board should go over the five general questions regarding variations. You will decide our three questions, and then make your motion, stating that findings of fact are made part of the approval. Mr. Orrico explained that staff is doing this to make sure we are not analyzing these findings of fact before the hearing. Mr. Schubert made a motion, seconded by Ms. Murphy, to adjourn the meeting. - end # ## Lynn Stratton Cholewa L:ICOMMUNITV DEVELOPMENT DEPT\CASE FILES\2004\24. 12 -1141 McCarthy RdlExcapl of May 3 mins -1141 mccaM.wpd (page 3 of 3)