HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990-01-16 ZBA minutesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
~.
DATE: January 16, 1990 AT: Village Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, Vice-Chairman Sobkoviak,
R. Mentzer:, H. Bayer, W. Schempf, M. Krippel.
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
K. Jania, Secretary
Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll
call was taken. J. Anderson was absent.
There being no additions or corrections, Chairman Simmons declared
the minutes of the September 19, 1989 meeting approved as presented.
Case No. 242-113089V - Douglas Graver
Requesting variance of 8 feet from the Residence A 10-foot rear
yard setback requirement for attached garages.
Location: 404 W. Chicago
Mr. Waldock reported. the subject site is a small single-family
residential parcel with lot dimensions of 66' x 58'. The site is
~ improved with a single-family two-story wood frame house. Presently
there is no garage on the property. The request is to allow for
construction of a 19' x 18' garage.
Applicant has listed hardships related to the size of the lot, the
placement of surrounding structures, and the cost of removing an
existing bay window.
The general feeling is that garages are an important aspect of
residential uses and should be provided for all houses where possible.
Staff's findings are: hardships are found related to the size of the
parcel, location of existing structures on and adjacent to the site
and to the cost of modifications required to construct in accordance
with current setbacks; the variance as requested would not be harmful
to surrounding property; construction of a garage on site may benefit
the property by reducing outside storage. Staff recommends .approval
of the variance requested.
Mr. Waldock stated, as an alternative the garage can be constructed as
a detached structure as long as a minimum of 6 feet is maintained
between the garage and adjacent structures. Detached garages have a
setback requirement of 3 feet side and rear, and 50 feet from front.
For this reason, a variance would still be required if a detached garage
was constructed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 16, 1990
~' Page Two
Letters from adjoining landowners were received stating they have
no objection to :th:e applicant constructing a garage as proposed..
There were no objectors present.
Petitioner, Douglas Graver, was duly sworn.
Petitioner was asked if the Planner's recommendation of a 3-foot
setback, rather than a 2-foot setback would affect his building plans.
Petitioner stated he has no problem with a 3-foot setback.
H. Bayer moved to recommend to the Village Board that they approve a
variance allowing an attached garage 3 feet from the south property
line where 10 feet is required by ordinance for the property located
at 404 W. Chicago Street. Seconded by J. Sobkoviak. Vote by roll call.
Mentzer, yes; Bayer, yes; Schempf, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Krippel, yes;
Simmons, yes. 6 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
Case No. 247-121889V - Dr. Joseph Conklin, Jr.
Requesting variance to allow construction of an office at 20' front
yard setbacks where 30' is required.
Location: Southwest corner of Lockport and James Streets.
Mr. Waldock reported the applicants propose the construction of a
professional office building (clinic) at the southwest corner of
Lockport and James Streets. Building is approximately 2200 sq. ft. in
area with 13 parking stalls. There are some scattered trees in the
western portion of the site as well as a large oak tree on the south
portion of the site. Lot area is approximately 24,000 sq. ft.
Access to the site is proposed on James Street.
Applicants have mentioned that a covered entry encroaches into the
30-foot setback area by 10 feet. They state that the reduced setback
better conforms with existing setbacks for surrounding buildings.
The variances if approved are also intended to preserve the only large
mature tree on site. Applicants feel that the present design is the
most efficient and that variances would not harm adjacent properties.
The applicants have not shown that hardships exist requiring the
placement of the building only at 20 feet. Preservation of a tree is
justification for a variance. In this case, moving the building 10 feet
south will bring the drive aisle very close to the tree or may cause
its removal. An alternative driveway layout would move the access to
Route 30 which is not advisable.
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 16, 1990
Page Three
The question of conformance with existing setbacks on surrounding
lots, in staff's opinion, holds the most merit. This would be a
policy question as to whether the Village feels that business
development should be provided similar setback rights as granted
residential development. In residential zones houses can be set back
a distance compatible with structures within 60 feet of the parcel.
Staff cannot make this determination administratively and therefore
formal action via the variance process is required in this case.
Staff's finding is that the site has adequate area to construct the
proposed structure and parking spaces without variances if the layout
is amended and recommends denial of the requested variance.
The Board discussed setbacks in the downtown area. Mr. Waldock stated
we are in the process of updating the zoning ordinance and under
the new ordinance he would envision this building would be in conformance.
Mr. Waldock stated the real question is, what type of setbacks do we
really want to see in our historic downtown area and therefore is
there justification for a variance in this case.
After some discussion the Board felt this is really an improvement
over the existing structures in the downtown area. The Board felt
'. ~ they would not have a problem with the 20-foot setback.
H. Bayer asked the Petitioner if it would present a hardship if we
stayed with the .desired setback.
Petitioner, Dr. Joseph Conkin, Jr., was duly sworn.
Dr. Conklin stated he feels it would be a hardship if the setback
requirement is left at 30 feet. He wants to be a good neighbor and
wants to fit in with the neighborhood by putting in a building that
the neighborhood will be proud of. As for the driveway and into the
parking lot, you have 18' spaces. There is a tree -- the center of the
tree sticks out approximately 22' -- now we are 4' plus into the
driveway. That would allow 23' of passage between the tree and the
building. This would not be much space for cars to pass through.
It will be a hardship on the patients who have spinal problems, neck
problems, etc. They would have a hard time turning around and backing
out. Icy weather would create a problem also.
Dr. Conklin also discussed covenants of the deed for this property.
Some time ago the Village Board changed the zoning to B-3 -- covenants
in the deed stated that two buildings may be erected in the future.
Dr. Conklin stated there is no professional office space in Plainfield.
He feels his building will be an improvement to the area. One of his
main concerns is to save the large oak tree. He would also incur a
~`~ financial hardship if the variance is not granted as he has spent a
lot of money designing this building and would have to go back to the
drawing board to redesign it.
Zoning Board of Appeals
January 16, 1990
Page Four
J. Sobkoviak moved to recommend to the Village Board that they approve
the Petitioner's request for a variance based on the preservation
of the large oak tree, the fact that the setbacks as proposed would
not be a negative impact to the neighborhood, the proposed setbacks
with surrounding properties are consistent, and the Village will
benefit by maintaining development standards for downtown sites.
Seconded by W. Schempf. Vote by roll call.
Mentzer, yes; Bayer, yes; Schempf, yes; Sobkoviak, yes; Krippel, yes;
Simmons, yes. 6 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
Adjourn: 8:00 p.m.
Kay Jana, Secretary