HomeMy Public PortalAbout1995-04-04 ZBA minutesPLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DATE: Apri 14, 1995
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
ALSO PRESENT:
AT: Plainfield Library
Chairman Sobkoviak
R. Smolich R.Schinderle
W. Schempf W. Manning
A. Anderson
P. ). Waldock, Village Planner
). ~. Durbin, Planner
S. Nart Secretary
Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak led the pledge
to the flag, roll call was taken, ~. Kachel was absent. The minutes of September 20, 1994 were
accepted as amended.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
CASE NO. 478-030295.V and 479-030295.V
Planner Durbin summarized his report as follows: There were two separate cases, but handled as
one. The applicant is seeking a variance in the corner side yard setback requirements for Lots 15
and 16 in Spring Hill Estates. Lots 15 and 16 are located along the east side of the development.
The lots are separated by a dedicated right-of--way (as shown on the slide) which was intended to
provide a future connection to the east. The applicant is requesting the variance to allow for the
construction of three car garages on the lots.
The Zoning Ordinance specifies yard requirements for the R1 district as follows:
Front yard
30 feet
Interior side yard Requirement on any one side of a lot may be seven (7) feet, but
there shall be provided and preserved an open space or side yard
of at least a sum total of twenty (20) feet on each lot, and there
shall also be maintained twenty (20) feet of open space or side
yard between adjoining buildings measured from the nearest
vertical supporting structure or member of each building.
Corner side yard 30 feet.
Rear yard 25% of the lot depth which need not exceed 30 feet.
The applicants were not present at the beginning of the presentation, Planner Durbin stated he
wanted to ask them if there was proper notice given to the adjacent landowners.
An adjacent landowner, questioned the standard setback, he was told it was 10 ft. Planner Durbin
explained that it must be a total of 20 ft. between houses, but could be as little at 7 ft. between one
house and the lot line, and 13 ft. between the house next door and the lot line, a total of 20 ft.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Apri 14, 1995
Page 2
Planner- Durbin outlined the requirements for granting~a variance as follows;
The site must be found to be unique to the extend that the ordinance could not anticipate
the conditions applicable.
2. It must be found, that if the variance is not granted, there would be no reasonable value of
use of the property. The property would not be buildable or not buildable to the extend that
is customarily regarded as reasonable.
3. It must be found that due to the unique conditions of the site, meeting the standards of the
ordinance cause undue hardship upon the owner in achieving a reasonable use of the
property.
In this case the variance was being requested for the construction of the third garage stall. Without
the third stall the applicant can meet all the setbacks. A three car garage may be more marketable,
but approximately ~/z the lots in Springhill have two car garages. The mitigating factor in the case
was said to be the right-of-way that extends from Hawthorne Circle to the east (future development)
between Lots 15 and 16. The land to the east is owned by Vulcan Materials and it could be 20
years before the gravel mine is played out. Or, they could quit gravel mining and sell the property.
When that land is developed, the stub street is a desirable connection. The stub street (right-of--way)
appears to be a vacant lot. The construction of the road, would make the structures 18.66 ft. from
the road, substantially less than required by the Zoning Ordinance, and the drive would be closer
to the intersection, which is part of the rationale for 30 ft. setbacks on both street frontages for corner
lots, in the Zoning Ordinance.
There were four findings of the Planner:
1. The front yard of the subject sites is the yard fronting on Hawthorn Circle, the corner side
yard is the yard fronting on the unnamed dedicated right-of-way, and the rear yard is the yard
furthest from Hawthorn Circle. As such the only yard setback requirement variance
necessary for the proposed structure is for the corner side yard setback.
2. The required setbacks do not create an undue hardship as the site is buildable with a two
car garage, the variance is requested only to allow for the construction of a three car garage.
This case does not meet the three criteria outlined above which would warrant approval of
the variance.
3. While it may be some period of time before the unnamed road is constructed, the road
would be desirable connection to the east.
4. Upon construction of the unnamed road, granting of this variance would result in negative
impacts, particularly the close proximity of the drive to the intersection.
Staff recommended denial of the variance request for both cases, Case No. 478-030295V and Case
No. 479-030295.V.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
April 4, 1995
Page 3
Questions of the Plan Commission included, the setback if the variance was not granted, and was
answered 30 ft. Where did this right-of--way come from, and was answered, when the property was
Final Platted. When the applicant bought the property, that stub street (right-of--way was on the Final
Plat. The ownership of the right-of-way was also discussed, it is owned by the Village. There was
discussion regarding moving the driveway to the other side of the lot, and discussion of making the
drive narrower at the street.
Chairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner, Carl Roppolo. Mr. Roppolo stated that Planner
Waldock suggested to him that he get buyers on both properties before the requested the variance,
and he does have that. The house he is proposing for these lots is the narrowest model. He said
he would not be opposed to flipping the houses and putting the drives on the interior side of the
lot. He felt that he had done his best to use the lot. If he couldn't put up a three car garage, he
would lose the sale on both the houses.
Planner Waldock spoke, regarding the use of the lot and his previous discussions with Mr. Roppolo.
Planner Waldock was hoping there would be buyers for two car garages then there wouldn't be a
need for a variance. It is Staff's finding that there is a reasonable use of the property without the use
of a variance, and the lot is not unique, and there is not a hardship.
Planner Waldock asked the applicant if the adjacent landowners had been notified? The applicant
did not know, and did not have the required receipts from the Certified Letters. As the adjacent
landowners had not been notified of the meeting, it was necessary to continue the meeting, until
April 18, to allow the adjacent landowners to be notified.
W. Manning made a motion to continue the case until the adjacent landowners have been notified.
Seconded by R. Schinderle. Roll call vote. R. Smolich, yes; W. Schempf, yes; R. Schinderle, yes;
W. Manning, yes; A. Anderson, yes; Chairman Sobkoviak, yes. Motion carried.
ADJOURN: 8:30
~-~`~.~
S aron Hart, Secretary