Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves 5-foot setback variance for garage at 795 North Shore Drive
Summary
The council unanimously approved a variance allowing a homeowner to build a 600-square-foot garage 5 feet from North Shore Drive, citing lot constraints and staff conditions; the project must meet review comments and UDO requirements.
The Crystal Lake City Council voted unanimously May 19 to grant a setback variance that allows a homeowner to build a 600-square-foot garage 5 feet from North Shore Drive at 795 North Shore Drive.
Homeowner Emma Lukin told the council she bought the property more than a year ago expecting a small garage could be built at the 5-foot mark for structures under 600 square feet. "I purchased the property just over a year ago now... the 1 thing that was missing was a garage," Lukin said, adding she had been told earlier that a structure under 600 square feet could be placed in that location. She said moving the garage farther back would increase driveway paving, worsen drainage and reduce backyard space she wants to keep.
Liz (city planning staff) explained that the lot is a double-frontage parcel and that outliers produce a 38-foot average setback; the homeowners' proposal would leave five feet from the sidewalk and would keep the property under the 50% maximum hard-surface coverage at the current plan (about 49%). She said pushing the garage back would raise coverage to about 53% or as high as 62% if the property met the full 38-foot setback and required additional driveway area.
Several council members voiced support. One said he "would be in favor of approving the 5 foot setback" to avoid putting the property over the hard-surface coverage limit; another called the proposed garage "in character with the rest of the neighborhood." The mayor said he preferred a deeper setback for safety when backing out but concurred with a unanimous vote.
Council approved the variance with conditions from the staff report, including compliance with section 4-700(b) on fences, addressing review comments from community development and public works, and that the permit be consistent with testimony and submitted plans. The motion required the petitioner to meet all departmental review comments prior to final approval.
The council’s action allows the applicant to proceed subject to those conditions; the project will require final permit review by city staff before construction can begin.
