1 - Village of Palatine
1 - Village of Palatine
1 - Village of Palatine
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
TYPE: ORDINANCE SUBMIITED BY: PLANNING & ZONING DATE: 06/25/2012<br />
DESCRIPTION: Special Use to permit an addition to be setback 22 feet from the rear property line at<br />
175 W, Imperial Court<br />
(McCarville, Case No.12-401<br />
(District: 2). __<br />
COMMIITEE ACTION:<br />
BACKGROUND:<br />
DATE:<br />
The Subject Property contains an existing single-family residence and the Petitioners are proposing to <br />
construct an addition on the rear <strong>of</strong> the home. The addition would be set back 22 feet from the rear <br />
property line; therefore the Petitioners are seeking: <br />
SpeCial Use to permit a rear yard setback <strong>of</strong> 22 feet instead <strong>of</strong> the minimum required 40<br />
feet pursuant to Section 10.06 (c) (13) <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Palatine</strong> Zoning Ordinance.<br />
ANALYSIS:<br />
• The Subject Property is zoned "R-2," Single Family.<br />
• The Petitioners would like to add a 3-season room to the rear <strong>of</strong> their home. The existing home has a<br />
nonconforming rear yard setback at approximately 35 feet. The proposed addition would have a<br />
setback <strong>of</strong> 22 feet.<br />
• The peak height <strong>of</strong> the addition would be 12 feet.<br />
• The addition would be in-line with the south side <strong>of</strong> the house, which is set back slightly less than 10<br />
feet from the side property line. The Petitioner is aware <strong>of</strong> this, and has indicated to Staff that the<br />
addition will meet the 10 foot required side yard setback.<br />
• There is a 10 foot utility easement along the rear property line. The addition would not encroach on the<br />
easement. The property backs up to Salt Creek, which has an approximate easement width <strong>of</strong> 60 feet,<br />
prior to meeting the closest residential property.<br />
• Building coverage and lot coverage would be approximately 30.1 percent and 41.6 percent,<br />
respectively. Both conform to Code.<br />
ALTERNATIVES:<br />
1. Recommend approval <strong>of</strong> the Special Use.<br />
2. Do not recommend approval <strong>of</strong> the Special Use.<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Public Hearing:<br />
Residents Testifying:<br />
Concerns:<br />
Vote:<br />
June 12, 2012, Zoning Board <strong>of</strong> Appeals<br />
None<br />
None<br />
The ZBA voted 9-0 to approve the request. Staff concurs with this<br />
recommendation.<br />
ACTION REQUIRED: <br />
Special Use to permit an addition to be setback 22 feet from the rear property line at 175 W. Imperial <br />
Court (McCarville).
Change language