HomeMy WebLinkAboutZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - 09/03/2009 - THREE CAR GARAGE/1463 HODLMAIR ELK GROVE VILLAGE
Zoning Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
September 3; 2009
Present: T. Rodgers
D. Childress
L. Dohrer
J. Oliveto
G. Schumm
J. Walz
S. Carlson
Absent: P. Kaplan
J. Meister, Sr.
Staff: S. Trudan, Deputy Director, Community Development
Zoning Variation — Docket# 09-5 — 1463 Hodlmair Lane
Acting Chairman Schumm called the meeting to order at 7:04 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; snow blower; lawn mower; etc. He said he needed the extra space to park a
car that was currently being stored at his sister's house. He added that in response to
concerns raised at his first hearing he made changes to his proposal that he felt were
within reason and aesthetically appropriate. He also stated that the new proposal was
logical and would add value to his home.
Mr. Messina stated that the garage could not be built on the other side of the house due to
the fact that the escape windows for the basement were located on that side. He
explained that his three-sided lot left nothing in the back yard and thus limited his options
with respect to locating the third car garage. He added that he was aware that he would
have to obtain architectural drawings to submit for a building permit if his proposal is
approved and that he would be at a loss if he was not permitted to have a third car garage
on his one-third acre lot.
Mr. Carlson stated that he had no problem with the proposed size but wasn't sure what
the proposed roof line would look like.
Mr. Messina explained the architect suggested that roofline for the garage addition match
the roofline of the opposite side of the house. He added that he would be open to
suggestions from the Board and that he does not want to create an eyesore.
Mr. Oliveto asked if he talked to his neighbors about the new proposal. Mr. Messina said
he spoke to the neighbor to the left of his property and added that the neighbor was
surprised at the amount of openness there would still be after the addition was built. Mr.
Oliveto stated he liked the proposed roof lines.
Page 2
Mr. Walz stated that he liked reduction in size and the architectural changes the petitioner
had made.
Mr. Rodgers asked if there would be a walk-along next to the new garage. The petitioner
stated that there would not and that there would be grass and shrubbery next to the
garage.
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. Childress stated that he agreed with the reduction in size and appreciated the
petitioner's cooperation in amending his request.
Mr. Dohrer pointed out the fact that the slope of the new roof could not match the slope
of the opposite side of the house since the depth of the house differed from the depth of
the proposed addition. He explained that in order to match the slope they would either
have to construct a roof that would be off-set from front to back, or raise the top plate.
Mr. Dohrer asked if there would be a lift in the garage. Mr. Messina stated there would
not be one at this point.
Mr. Dohrer told the petitioner that he would have the option of a higher garage door if he
raised the elevation of the top plate.
Mr. Schumm stated that the ridge cannot be higher than the roofline on the south side of
the house. He then asked if Engineering had a problem with the proposal.
Mr. Trudan explained that theheight of the garage door for the addition should match the
height of the existing garage door.
Mr. Schumm asked if anyone in the audience wished to express any concerns. Mr. Tim
Burns stated that he was there to monitor how the Village treated corner lots.
A motion was made by Mr. Dohrer, and seconded by Mr. Walz to grant the proposed
variation subject to the conditions that the height of the ridge for the proposed garage will
match the height of the ridge on the opposite of the house, and that the height of the new
garage door will match the height of the existing garage door. Upon voting the motion
passed unanimously. Mr. Schumm advised the petitioner to work with the Engineering
and Community Development.Department once the architectural plans are prepared and
to be present at the next Village Board meeting for the final decision on his zoning
variation. The meeting adjourned 7:45 P.M.
Page 3
Respectfully submitted,Steven J , rudan
Deputy Director; Community Development
C: Chairman and Me ers Zoning Boards of Appeals; Mand Boa of
Trustees, Villagek; Villaa ttorney, Village Merger; Depullage
Manager, Assistant Vie Manaaer; Director of the Engi ring and Community
Development; Director -POworks. Fire Cbief, Deputy Fief(2);
Inspectional Servic upervisor, Chairman and Mem rs of Plan Commission