HomeMy Public PortalAbout1994-09-20 ZBA minutesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: September 20, 1994
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
AT: Plainfield Library
Chairman Sobkoviak
R. Smolich L. Kachel
D. Norris W. Schempf
W. Manning A. Anderson
P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
). Durbin, Planner
S. Hart, Secretary
J. Peterson, Village President
M. Lambert, Village Trustee
D. Rock, Village Trustee
J. Djerf, Village Engineer
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak led the pledge
to the flag, roll call was taken. The minutes of May 3, 1994 were approved as presented.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. 458-081194.V KNOTTS VARIANCE
Planner Durbin summarized his report as follows: This request is for a side yard setback variance,
to construct a new attached garage at 735 N. Center. The site is zoned Residential A, and on three
sides, to the north is Industrial, I-1. The site plan as submitted, notes an Alley, but there is no
improved alley, and there is a two car detached garage which was not shown on the site plan. They
propose a family room on the back of the house and attached garage. Planner Durbin had a slide
presentation to demonstrate the surrounding land uses, and the density of the area as it is. The
backyard grade is depressed approximately 3 to 4 ft. below the grade at the location of the house.
The garage floor elevation would need to be built up or a vary extensive ramp would be needed to
reach the elevation of the house floor. In this case, encroachment into the setback would not
increase the apparent density of the neighborhood. While the property to the north is zoned
industrial, the facility itself is not in close proximity to the subject property. As a result this
encroachment would not increase the perceived density of the neighborhood, nor would it create
any additional problems. The adjacent house to the south has an attached garage, however, the
majority of other houses have detached garages. Many of the other garages on this street appear to
be non-conforming, as they appear to be located in the required setback. The street scape is very
dense. In this case, however, encroachment into the setback would place a residential use in closer
proximity to an existing industrial use.
The applicants plan to live in the home when they retire, and are planning accordingly by providing
for a wheelchair ramp, if needed. The applicants feel that an attached garage would allow for
placement of a ramp inside the garage, thereby protecting itfrom the elements. The house is located
28 ft. from the north lot line. The applicants hope to construct a 22 ft. garage, which would then
be 6 ft. from the side property line. (5 ft. at the rear of the garage).
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
September 20, 1994
Page 2
The staff felt that it might be possible to meet the applicants goals without the need for a variance,
at first, as the backyard of this lot is large enough that there may be room for the placement of a
garage attached to the rear of the house, which would not encroach upon the setback requirements.
It was felt there was enough room to al low for a detached garage. Planner Durbin's overhead display
pointed out several configurations for a garage in the back yard, and concluded that: The backyard
grade is depressed approximately 3 to 4 ft. below the grade at the location of the house. The garage
floor elevation would need to be built up or a vary extensive ramp would be needed to reach the
elevation of the house floor. The existing drive would need to be extended (the existing gravel may
require work anyway if it is to provide for wheelchair access, it would need to be paved). An
examination of possible locations for an attached garage indicates that it may actually be difficult to
provide adequate vehicle access.
The possibility of a detached garage in the back yard was also discussed, the problems being, the
need for an exterior ramp, which would be very extensive and exposed to the elements.
Staff is sensitive, however, to the desire to attach the garage for the purpose of enclosing the ramp
for both safety and aesthetic reasons.
Staff findings in this case, are as follows:
1. This case is unique in that handicap accessibility needs must be met on a small lot.
Without a variance, the applicants may be subjected to physical and financial
hardships.
Granting this variance would lead to no negative externalities in that the
neighborhood is already dense and there are not structures to the immediate north.
Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.
Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the applicants. There was a short discussion regarding the real or
possible need for wheel chair access, the owner has an existing medical condition. Chairman
Sobkoviak reminded the Plan Commission of the tests for granting a variance. In granting a variance,
one of the tests is that a property owner can not successfully utilize the property to its highest use
without the variance.
After a short discussion, W. Schempf made a motion to recommend to the Village Board the
approval of the variance in side yard setback requirements to construct a new attached garage on
the north side of the house. Seconded ~. Kachel. Roll call vote: R. Smolich, yes; L. Kachel, yes;
W. Schempf, yes; D. Norris, yes; W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes.
Motion carried 7 yes 0 no.
I
Sharon Hart, Secretary