HomeMy Public PortalAbout1992-05-19 ZBA minutesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: May 19, 1992 AT: Plainfield Library
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT; Chairman Sobkoviak, A. Consola,
M. Krippel, D. Norris, H. Bayer,
W. Schempf, E. Fortini.
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
S. Hart, Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll
call was taken. G. Bott, R. Zimmerman, the School District
Representative and J. Eichelberger were absent.
Chairman Sobkoviak declared the
meeting approved with corrections.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
minutes of the March 17, 1992
NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. 342-041692 V
OWNER: Timberview Development Corporation
REQUEST: Variance from sign regulations to allow a Temporary
Project Announcement sign of 264 square feet where 32
square feet is the maximum permitted.
LOCATION: Winding Creek Subdivision Lot 50 along I-55 south of
Franklin Heights Subdivision.
Mr. Waldock summarized his report as follows:
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved a similar sign request for
Golden Meadows Estates in June 1991, (160 square feet in area,
16' X 10' sign for a period of 18 months). At that time both the
Zoning Board of Appeals, and the Village Board, mentioned that a
text amendment should be considered to permit this type of sign
without a variance being needed, during the Plan Commission portion
of the agenda we will be discussing that Text Amendment.
The Timberview sign proposal is for 264 square feet in area. The
dimensions of the sign are 20' X 10' with an 8' X 8' logo (cut
out) proposed for the top, on 6 foot high poles.
Overall height of this sign would then be 24 feet. However, due
to the Winding Creek location along the Interstate Highway, the
distance from the sign to the edge of the roadway is greater than
State Routes, and traffic speeds are higher. For this reason, the
larger sign may be justified.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MAY 19, 1992
Page 2
Findings of staff:
1. Hardships relate to traffic speeds and separation distance,
making a 32 square foot sign impossible to read.
2. Sites along I-55 in Plainfield are uncommon and are uniquely
situated.
3. Approval of variations as requested would not be detrimental
to surrounding properties.
Therefore the recommendation of staff is for approval of a
variation to permit a temporary subdivision marketing sign of 264
square feet for a period of up to 24 months renewable with Village
approval.
Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Karen Turnich of
Timberview Development.
Ms. Turnich said size of the sign was based on the advice of their
sign sub-contractor, Artistic Signs of Joliet. She told the
Commission the plan is to use the sign for two or three years, or
approximately through the end of 1995.
Mr. Krippel motioned to approve a variance from the sign
regulations to allow a temporary project announcement sign of 264
square feet where 32 square feet is the maximum permitted.
Seconded by E. Fortini. Vote by roll call.
A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf,
yes; H. Bayer, yes; E. Fortini, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes.
7 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
CASE NO. 343-041692 V
OWNER: David and Jeanne Hagen.
REQUEST: Variance from the front yard setback requirement of
33 feet to allow a 6 foot encroachment for a new
porch.
LOCATION: 137 North Corbin Street
Mr. Waldock summarized his report as follows, he pointed out the
site on the map, fronting along Corbin Street, and backing up to
Forest Preserve property in the Lake Renwick area. Mr. Waldock
said, the applicants propose a large scale remodeling project for
the site, presently the site is developed with a single family home
and is built at the front setback line. The portion of the new
construction in question tonight is the front portion, because the
addition of a front porch, will encroach into front setback by six
feet. This will result in a front setback of 23 feet where 30 feet
is required.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MAY 19, 1992
Page 3
While Staff agrees with the homeowners that the porch addition is
a significant aesthetic feature for the property, the home is
however useful without the porch. Therefore a reasonable use of
the property exists with out the variance. Among the tests for a
variance approval are for the existence of unique conditions,
hardships and reasonable use. In this case the site does not
appear to be unique, nor is there a hardship in terms of
establishing or maintaining a reasonable use for the property. For
these reasons, and in a purely technical sense, a variation is
difficult for Staff to support. Staff does however, agree with the
applicants in the position that a variance if granted will not
adversely effect adjoining properties. The variance if granted
will increase the aesthetics of the project and improve the value
of the subject property. However, in Staff's opinion, these
reasons are insufficient to support a variance in this case.
FINDINGS OF STAFF:
1. The subject site is not unique in comparison with other
properties on Corbin Street and in the Village.
2. The property owners presently enjoy a reasonable use of their
property and will be able to continue and expand on the use
of their property through building additions which meet with
Village setback requirements.
Staff recommends that variations be denied for construction of a
six foot deep porch that would encroach into the front yard setback
area at 137 North Corbin Street.
Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the applicant, David Hagen.
Michael Lambert, stated his name, adding he was representing David
and Jeanne Hagen.
Mr. Lambert said, as Peter pointed out, this may not meet the
standards of a variance on a technical aspect, but I think that if
you are familiar with the Corbin Street neighborhood, we are not
asking for anything that does not already exist within the
neighborhood. (He handed around polaroid shots to clarify what the
applicants want to do. One showed an enclosed porch 200 feet north
of the subject site.) The other porches on this street, are
enclosed porches, we are seeking to have an open porch, that would
strictly add to the aesthetics and to the street scape of the
neighborhood.
This architects sketch shows that the idea is to blend in the
Historic Core of the Village, give it a 1930 Bungalow look, with
a sweeping porch, to give visual interest to the street, and shade
the windows. It is an open porch, strictly decorative, it will add
to the overall quality of the entire improvement being proposed.
One of the driving forces here, is we are dealing with the Historic
neighborhood that have evolved over time.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MAY 19, 1992
Page 4
Mr. Lambert continued, when you drive around in the central
Village, you will see a lot of this diversity, unlike some of the
newer subdivisions, where uniform setbacks are more the norm.
During discussion it was mentioned fact that there were no
objections received regarding the request. G. Krahn questioned
about the Historic Residential Core, and asked that it be defined.
Mr. Waldock stated, the term Historic Core comes from the
Comprehensive Plan, and this site is indeed designated Historic
Core. It might be better called Central District.
D. Norris remarked that she thought the plan looked very
attractive, her concern was that we would set a precedent, people
will come in, want porches on the front, but they will not have an
architect designed house. So it might look like some of the other
houses with porches on the front, and they will look like some of
the other houses that Mr. Lambert showed pictures of. That was her
concern.
M. Krippel, said he thought it was a significant improvement to the
property. He would hate to see a technicality, in terms of no
hardship, keep it from happening, he said there is always a way to
rationalize a hardship.
A. Consola, said that he did agree that in the central core, every
structure is unique. I don°t think we need to worry about a
precedent, as long as we are considering them on a case by case
basis.
Chairman 5obkoviak, stated that the uniqueness in this case, should
be reflected in the finding of fact, as Tony pointed out, all
these houses are unique, each one is different, and each variance
that is applied for is judged on its own merit. Ordinarily the
criteria for awarding a variance, is a hardship, something that
keeps the owner from developing or using the property to its best
advantage. We can't say that here, but we can say that the
property will be greatly enhanced and the surrounding neighborhood
will be enhanced by its uniqueness.
H. Bayer asked, if the petition were denied, would you not do any
building, or would you build without the porch?
M. Lambert answered, they would move ahead with the addition as far
as everything talked about, it would just be without the porch.
It just would not have the unified, upgraded look.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MAY 19, 1992
Page 5
Mr. Waldock, stated, My staff report, is as Mr. Krippel indicated,
truly based on objective criteria, without input from subjective
criteria. The value aspect was not considered in my report. I
mention that, because it can have an effect on the subjective
portion of ones decision making process. I wrestled with this
particular case, because of what I perceive to be a value inherent
in the project.
I feel that in my staff report, should reflect the technical and
objective position. If there is an subjective reasoning, it should
come from the Zoning Board, and the Village Board. That is why I
denied the variance.
Mr. Consola motioned to approve this variance from the front yard
setback requirement of 33 feet to allow a 6 foot encroachment for
a new porch. Seconded W. Schempf.
A. Consola, yes; M. Krippel, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Schempf,
yes; H. Bayer, no; E. Fortini, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes.
6 yes, 1 no. Motion carried.
FINDINGS OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS:
1. Uniqueness comes from the location in the Historic or
Central Core area of the community, in that all homes are
diverse in the area, and this is indeed unique.
2. Hardship would relate to the lost opportunity to bring
this house to its full aesthetic value.
Would the Zoning Board agree with those as findings in this case?
The consensus of the Board was yes they could agree with the
findings stated.
Adjourn 7:30
Sharon Hart, Secretary