Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 05/22/2003 - 03-3/1281 CYPRESS LN RECFIVEP MAY 2 7 2003 1luw k CL`cRK`S OFFICE ELK GROVE VILLAGE Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes May 22, 2003 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman D. Childers J. Oliveto J. Franke J. Walz R. Penley G. Schumm T. Rodgers A. Kreutzer Staff.- S. Trudan, Asst. Dir., Community Development V. Zaric, Plan Reviewer, Community Development Zoning Variation — Docket# 03-03— 1281 Cypress Lane Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Ms. Elizabeth Lukowych was sworn in and asked to present her case. Ms. Lukowych explained that a hardship exists on her property due to the fact that she is located on a corner lot which leaves a very small rear yard area to build on. She stated that a garage is necessary to store and protect her antique cars that are sometimes damaged by animals that come from the nearby creek at night. She further explained that the proposed location for the fence is necessary for privacy, security and also screening from public view. Ms. Lukowych continued to explain that a variation to allow a larger garage was necessary to accommodate the indoor parking of her three cars as well as other personal possessions. She also stated that the variations she was seeking for both the fence and the garage were the result of recent amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and that the variations would not be necessary had she constructed these projects a couple of years ago. Chairman Kaplan stated that they had received a letter signed by several neighbors endorsing the petitioner's proposal. Mr. Franke asked how many cars would be parked in the garage and if the petitioner intended to construct the new garage up to the 25-foot building setback line. The petitioner stated that the additional length of the new garage would Page 2 extend into the rear yard instead of closer to the setback line, and added that she would have as many as six cars parked at her home. Mr. Franke inquired as to why she thought she was losing parking area by having a corner lot. Mr. Oliveto stated that he did not feel that living on a corner lot constituted a hardship. Mr. Schumm asked if the proposed fence would cause a line of sight problem. Staff indicated that the proposal would conform to the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Schumm then asked how many people lived at the house. The petitioner responded that two people live there. Mr. Walz identified the fact that a letter signed by neighbors, which was presented to the Board, expressed their approval of a fence that would not extend beyond the front of the garage. He emphasized that he did not feel comfortable about the fact that the letter endorsed something that differed from that which was proposed by the petitioner. Mr. Walz inquired why 72 square feet more than that allowed by code was necessary for the new garage. The petitioner stated that she would be able to fit three cars into a garage with the proposed dimensions. Ms. Kreutzer asked for clarification of what the garage would be used for and added that she felt a standard two-car garage was adequate for such a use. Mr. Rodgers asked for clarification on dimensions and proposed fence location. He also asked if the large car trailer would be permanently parked on the driveway and added that he thought the yoke resting on the public property was illegal. He suggested that moving the garage back further from the street might provide more room for the trailer. Mr. Penley stated that he had a problem with the petitioner proposing something other than what the neighbor's endorsement letter stated. Mr. Trudan asked the petitioner if she intended to keep a driveway in place that currently leads to a room that was originally an attached garage. The petitioner explained that she intended to keep it. Mr. Trudan explained that even though the current regulations are relatively new, there were other regulations in place for several years that would have limited the area of a new garage by establishing a maximum allowable ground coverage ratio. He further explained that the current regulations would require the removal of the driveway leading to the old detached garage as a condition of the approval of a detached garage. He also added that a trailer currently parked on the Page 3 driveway leading to the detached garage was illegally overhanging the public sidewalk. Chairman Kaplan asked the petitioner for permission to allow the Board members to consult one another. The petitioner agreed. A motion was made by Mr. Childress to grant the variation for the fence location provided that it would not extend beyond the front of the new garage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Penley and passed by unanimous vote. A second motion was made by Ms. Kreutzer to approve a variation for a 24' by 26'garage which was seconded by Mr. Watz. The motion was passed by unanimous vote. The petitioner was advised to contact the Village Clerk to find out when the matter will be considered by the Mayor and Board of Trustees, and was directed to attend the Village Board meeting. The petitioner was further advised that she would be able to ask for the variations she originally requested if she was not satisfied with the recommendation oil the Zoning Board of Appeals. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, brix�Lkk zOG Vence Zanc Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Board of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative Intern, Director of Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission