Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 07/23/2009 - THREE CAR GARAGE/1463 HODLMAIR RECEIVED ELK GROVE VILLAGE AUG 13 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE July 23, 2009 Present: P. Kaplan, Chairman T. Rodgers D. Childress L. Dohrer G. Schumm J. Walz S. Carlson Absent: J. Meister, Sr. J. Oliveto Staff- J. Herren, Plan Reviewer Zoning Variation —Docket# 09-2 — 1463 Hodlmair Lane Chairman Kaplan called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm and read the legal notice. The petitioner, Mr. Ross Messina, was sworn in and asked to present his case. Mr. Messina explained he would like to build an attached third car garage to store his extra cars, motorcycle, snow blower, lawn mower, etc. Chairman Kaplan asked the petitioner how many cars does he own. The petitioner replied he had too many cars. He stated most of the cars are collector pieces and he does not drive them. Mr. Messina explained his hobby is collecting show cars and going to car shows. He stated two of his cars are stored at his sister's house and would like to keep both of them at his house. Chairman Kaplan opened the hearing to the board for comments and questions. Mr. Carlson asked the petitioner if the roofline of the proposed garage would be integrated into the existing roofline of the house. Mr. Messina explained the proposed garage and existing house rooflines would all be integrated. The petitioner added that the third car garage would be attached to the existing house and be setback from the front of the house about twelve inches (12"). He said the proposed garage would not look like an addition; it would appear as part of the original house because it will be designed and built to match. The petitioner described his property as pie shaped; this contour shape gives him a small rear yard, and a large frontage. He finished by explaining the garage addition would be at least seven feet (7') from the side property line. Mr. Rodgers asked for the inside dimensions of the third car garage. The petitioner replied that he is not certain of the exact inside dimensions for the garage. Mr. Rodgers asked if the side walk along the side and rear of the house would be removed. Mr. Messina said the sidewalk would have to be removed, as the garage would be constructed on the current location of the sidewalk. Mr. Rodgers asked if the driveway would have to be widened. The petitioner replied the driveway would have to be widened to the edge of the garage door opening, and the remainder of the surrounding yard would be landscaping and grass. Mr. Rodgers asked the petitioner if he had discussed his plans for an attached third car garage with any of his neighbors. Mr. Messina responded that he has talked to his neighbors, and they had no objections with the third car garage. Mr. Walz questioned the petitioner what he meant by too many cars. He further asked if there would be any restoration or maintenance of automobiles in the garage. The petitioner stated that there would be no restoration of cars and only routine maintenance of his cars. Mr. Walz asked for the size of the garage door. He expressed his concerns about this proposed garage becoming a third and fourth car garage because the garage is shown on the plat of survey as nineteen feet (19') across the front. He explained this dimension is wide enough to install a sixteen-foot (16') garage door that would allow for two cars to be parked side by side. Mr. Messina said he would prefer a sixteen-foot (16') wide garage door, but if it does not complement the house then he would not install it. Mr. Walz commented that he objects to a house having two (2) sixteen-foot (16') garage doors. He explained the house would not look symmetrical and be unlike any other house in the neighborhood. Mr. Childress asked if there would be any sightline issues for pedestrians or cars traveling through the neighborhood. The petitioner replied that no sightlines would be affected and people traveling through the neighborhood will still have the same openness because the proposed garage would not protrude out in front of his house or the neighbor's house. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if he has spoken to an architect and if any plans have been generated. Mr. Messina said he has spoken to his architect about the garage and did not want to spend the money on the plans until he received the approval for the zoning variation. Mr. Schumm asked if there would be a new sidewalk placed around the proposed garage. The petitioner stated there would be no sidewalk around the garage. Mr. Schumm asked the petitioner if he would consider reducing the width of the garage down from nineteen feet (19'). He also mentioned owning a lot of cars is not a hardship. Mr. Schumm explained in order to grant a variation a hardship shall be demonstrated. Mr. Dohrer stated the petitioner does have an unusual lot because it is three sided and possess an extremely long frontage. He asked the petitioner what type of cars would be stored in the garage. Mr. Messina replied he has a Datsun and a Corvette that would be stored in the proposed garage. Mr. Dohrer commented that nineteen feet (19') is too much for a single stall garage. He further explained that a nine-foot (9') door is considered the widest allowable door for a single stall garage. Mr. Dohrer asked Mr. Messina if he would compromise and lessen the width of the garage. Mr. Messina said he would consider a compromise and was open to suggestions from the board. Mr. Dohrer questioned the petitioner why he needed to raise the roof of the existing and proposed garage roofs. The petitioner replied he needed this extra height for a car lift, and he wanted to match the proposed and existing garage rooflines thus making the addition look like it was part of the original house. Mr. Walz asked the petitioner when would he start the construction and how long it would take to complete. Mr. Messina-replied upon the approval he will get the plans and permit as soon as possible, and the entire project would be finished before winter. Chairman Kaplan opened the hearing to the general public. Mr. Jim Hamill, a neighbor at 1456 Hodlmair Lane was sworn in and asked to present his questions or comments. Mr. Hamill expressed he is very opposed to the third car garage at a width of nineteen feet (19'). He was thinking of a garage addition to be ten feet (10') at most with an eight- foot (8') garage door. Mr. Messina agreed he would not install a sixteen-foot (16') door on the garage addition. Chairman Kaplan entertained a motion. A motion to deny the variation was made by Mr. Schumm, and seconded by Mt. Walz. Upon voting (AYES —Kaplan, Rodgers, Childress, Dohrer, and Carlson) the motion to deny passed unanimously. Chairman Kaplan advised the petitioner to work with the Engineering and Community Development Department to reduce the width of the garage and a second hearing could take place so Mr. Messina could present a new variation. Chairman Kaplan also told Mr. Messina to be present at the next Village Board meeting for the final decision of his zoning variation. The meeting adjourned 8:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Justin Herren Plan Reviewer, Community Development C: Chairman and Members Zoning Boards of Appeals, Mayor and Board of Trustees, Village Clerk, Village Attorney, Village Manager, Deputy Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Director of the Engineering and Community Development, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief, Deputy Fire Chief(2), Assistant Fire Chief, Chairman and Members of Plan Commission