Skip to main content
header-left
File #: 2025-0469    Version: 0 Name:
Type: MOTION Status: IN COMMITTEE /COMMISSION
File created: 6/4/2025 In control: Committee of the Whole
On agenda: Final action:
Title: /Name/Summary Lorenz Residence - Variance for a Single-Family Residence - 11300 151st Street
Attachments: 1. Staff Report to the Plan Commission - Lorenz Residence Variance, 2. Staff Presentation to the Plan Commission - Lorenz Residence Variance, 3. Responses to Variance Standards, 4. Plat of Survey, 5. Detailed Grading Plan
Date Ver.Action ByActionResultAction DetailsMeeting Details/Media Packet
No records to display.

Title/Name/Summary

Lorenz Residence - Variance for a Single-Family Residence - 11300 151st Street

 

History

Project: Lorenz Residence - Variance for a Single-Family Residence - 11300 151st Street

Legistar ID: 2025-0469

Project ID: DP-25-00586

Petitioner: John Lorenz, Property Owner

Address: 11300 151st Street, Orland Park, IL

P.I.N.s: 27-07-401-014-0000

Parcel Size: 1.2 acres

 

Purpose: The Petitioner seeks approval of a variance to reduce the minimum required side yard setback from 20’ to 10.7’ to allow an addition to be constructed on the existing single-family residence.

 

BACKGROUND

The single-family home was constructed in 1989 in unincorporated Cook County. The subject property was annexed in 1998 (Ordinance 3149), in which it was zoned E-1 Estate Residential, which is the default zoning district for newly annexed properties. In 2024, the property was rezoned to the R-3 Residential District (Ordinance 5978). The 1.2-acre property is an irregularly shaped lot with Spring Creek running along its eastern half.

The existing home is considered legal non-conforming as it was constructed prior to being annexed to the Village. Therefore, it does not meet the current side setback requirement for the R-3 District. When the property was rezoned from E-1 to R-3 in 2024, it was in an attempt to make the property more conforming to the minimum side setback requirement to allow for an addition to be constructed on the existing residence. However, construction plans for the proposed building addition were not provided at that time, so it was unclear that the addition would include a side-loaded garage, which requires a larger side setback. After the building addition plans were provided for review, it was determined that a variance from the minimum side setback requirement would be necessary. The petitioner is now requesting a variance to construct an addition onto their home for a side-loaded garage with additional living space on the second floor.

 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Comprehensive Plan identifies single-family detached residential as an ideal use for this site. Overall, the proposed use is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan for this area.

 

 

 

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Planning District: Orland Grove

Planning Land Use Designation: Open Space / Single-Family Residential

 

ZONING DISTRICT

Existing: R-3 Residential District

 

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION

Existing: Single Family Detached Residential

Proposed: Single Family Detached Residential

 

SURROUNDING LAND USES

North: E-1 Estate Residential, Single Family Detached

East: E-1 Estate Residential, Place of Worship (St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church)

South: R-3A Residential, Single Family Detached (Spring Creek Estates)

                     OS Open Space, Spring Creek Estates Park

West: E-1 Estate Residential, Single Family Detached

 

DETAILED PLANNING DISCUSSION

The property owners wish to construct an addition on their single-family residence for a side-loaded garage with living space on the second floor. However, the proposed side setback would not meet the minimum setback requirement. The table below illustrates the code-required setbacks and the existing/proposed setbacks for the addition.

 

MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS

 

Front Setback

R-3 Requirement: 40’

Existing: 68.4’

Proposed: 40’

Side Setback (East)

R-3 Requirement: 8’, 10% of Lot Width, or 20’ for side yards with side loading garages (whichever is greater)

Existing & Proposed: 100’

Side Setback (South)

R-3 Requirement: 8’, 10% of Lot Width, or 20’ for side yards with side loading garages (whichever is greater)

Existing: 13.4’

Proposed: 10.7’

Rear Setback

R-3 Requirement: 30’

Existing & Proposed: 38’

 

Due to the irregular shape of the lot, the side setbacks are calculated by taking 10% of the average of the lot width at the front setback line and the rear setback line. Since there is a perennial stream running through the eastern portion of the site, the setback is taken from the bank of the stream as opposed to the east property line. The existing home has an average lot width of 179’, which requires a minimum side setback of 17.9’. Therefore, the existing setback of 13.4’ is considered legal non-conforming. The proposed addition, however, extends further into the front and side setbacks, which in turn increases the average lot width to 198’, and increases the minimum required side setback to 19.8’. However, the R-3 District requires a minimum side setback of 20’ for homes with side-loaded garages. Since the proposed addition is for a side-loaded garage, the minimum side setback of 20’ applies as it is more restrictive than the 19.8’ setback.

 

Per Section 5-109.E.1 of the Land Development Code (LDC), the Plan Commission is authorized to grant a variance to permit any setback less than the minimum setback required by the applicable regulations, but by not more than 25%. This variance request is to reduce the minimum setback by approximately 46.5%, so this request will need to proceed to the Board of Trustees for final approval. Other than the side yard setback variance, the petitioner has agreed to meet all other Village requirements for their proposed addition.

 

VARIANCE STANDARDS

When reviewing an application for a Variance, the decision-making body shall review the following standards for consideration. The petitioner has submitted responses to the standards, which are attached to this case file. Staff finds the responses satisfactory and recommends approval of the side yard setback variance. The standards below come from Section 5-109.D of the LDC:

1.                     That the property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located;

2.                     That the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;

3.                     That the variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;

4.                     That because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involves, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations were carried out;

5.                     That the conditions upon which the petition for a variation is are based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other property;

6.                     That the alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by these regulations and has not resulted from any act of the applicant or any other person presently having an interest in the property subsequent to the effective date hereof, whether or not in violation of any portion thereof;

7.                     That the granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located or otherwise be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, any adopted overlay plan or these regulations;

8.                     That the proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood;

9.                     That the variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable use of the land; and

10.                     That aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of his or her land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance; there must be a deprivation of all beneficial use of land.

 

In their responses, the petitioner discusses the unique conditions of the property that make it difficult to meet the minimum setback requirements. In addition to the setback being calculated to the edge of the stream bank, all development activity must occur at least 50’ away from the bank of the stream. Therefore, the site is unique and relief from the current LDC requirements may be warranted for this project.

 

Recommended Action/Motion

Regarding Case Number 2025-0469, also known as 11300 151st Street - Lorenz Residence Variance, Staff recommends to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated June 27, 2025;

And

Staff recommends that the Plan Commission approve a variance from Section 6-204.E.2.a of the Land Development Code to reduce the minimum required side setback from 20’ to 10.7’.

 

Recommended Motion

Regarding Case Number 2025-0469, also known as 11300 151st Street - Lorenz Residence Variance, I move to approve the Staff Recommended Action as presented in the Staff Report to the Plan Commission for this case.