Loading...
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