HomeMy Public PortalAbout2009-10-20 ZBA Minutes Michael P. Collins PRESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Paul Fay Larry Kachel Bill Lamb Garrett M. Peck James Racich VILLAGE OF PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RECORD OF MINUTES Date: October 20, 2009 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Renzi, Kiefer, Seggebruch, and Heinen; Chairman Sobkoviak, and Plainfield Fire Protection District Absent: Commissioners O’Rourke and Sanders , ex-officio Commissioner Schrack, Plainfield Park District, Plainfield School District, Plainfield Library District, and Plainfield Police Department Also Present: Michael Garrigan - Village Planner Village of Plainfield; Sara Javoronok – Planner Village of Plainfield, and Carol M illan, Secretary Village of Plainfield APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes from the October 6, 2009 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting were accepted as presented. OLD BUSINESS: CASE: 1480-082009.HPC.V 15311 S. CORBIN STREET Request: Variance to allow an accessory structure to be larger than the principle structure Location: 15311 S. Corbin Street. Applicant: Robert Smith TIME: 7:04 p.m. Planner Javoronok summarized the staff report. Notice was published and posted as required. The lot is approximately 20,000 sq. ft. and is an irregularly shaped lot. The existing residence is approximately 1,220 sq. ft. and the proposed carriage house style garage is 1,550 sq. ft. The applicant is planning to remodel the house and add an additional floor after the construction of the garage. They are seeking a Height Determination from the Historic Preservation Commission. The HPC has tabled the discussion until the review by the Zoning Board of Appeals. She gave the definition of an accesso ry structure as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed garage would be a larger structure than th e principal structure so the applicant is seekin g a variance. Planner Javoronok summarized the 4 findings of fact for a variance as outlined in the staff report. Staff does have a concern that the applicant may build the garage and due to extenuating circumstances, may not be able to complete the modifications to the residence. Staff does not feel the proposed garage and existing residence are compatible with each other. Staff is seeking direction as to whether the Commission feel s the proposed change will negatively affect the character of the neighborhood or alter the essential character of th e locality. Two motions were given in the staff report; one recommending approval of the reque sted variance and one recommending de nial of the requested variance. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if there was anyone in the audience that cared to ask a question or make a comment regarding this case. There was no response from the audience.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 2 of 3 hairman Sobkoviak swore in the petitioner. Robert Smith sp oke. He thanked the Commission for hearing the case. He as hairman Sobkoviak asked the petitioner if the existing garage will be removed. The petitioner replied it will be removed. ommissioner Renzi asked Planner Javoronok if the height restriction was tabled by the HPC. Planner Javoronok replied . ommissioner Seggebruch asked if the residence was constructe d first would the petitioner even need a variance. Planner ommissioner Kiefer asked if one of the c oncerns was whether the petitioner would be able to build the residence. He garage. hairman Sobkoviak stated after viewing the residence, it appeared to him that the accessory structure will be well to the e ommissioner Heinen asked Planner Javoronok if other variances similar in nature were granted on this street. Planner ommissioner Seggebruch asked the petitioner if the same pitch for the garage roof would be maintained on the house ted. ommissioner Renzi asked if any trees would be torn out. The petitioner replied the tree coverage will remain the same. ommissioner Renzi asked about the findings of fact. Village Planner Garrigan stated Planner Javoronok has outlined that ommissioner Seggebruch asked the petitioner if he plans to live in the house when the second floor is added. The the ommissioner Seggebruch asked if the new garage meets all of the setbacks. Planner Javoronok stated it does meet the ommissioner Heinen had a question about stipulation #4 in th e staff report. He asked what happens if the petitioner k C stated they want to build onto the garage and eventually do the house also. He found out the process was a little more extensive than what he had actually thought previously. He stated there have been several others on the street that have done this already. There is a carriage style house and garage next to him. Also, to the south there is another house that h been redone in this style. C C it was. Commissioner Renzi then asked if the Commission says yes would the case go back to the HPC and then to the Village Board for the height, or would it come back to the Pl an Commission for the height. Planner Javoronok stated the HPC would address the height and then it would go to the Village Board for approval. Commissioner Renzi then asked what the proposed height is in stories. Planner Javoronok st ated it is two stories. Chairm an Sobkoviak stated the house next door is two stories. Planner Javoronok stated the height is 23’ to the ridge. She then stated there is a Village Ordinance that explains how height is measured. There was a discussion about the height determination ordinance C Javoronok stated as long as the house was larger th an the garage they would not need a variance. C asked if there is a time table. Petitioner Smith stated they had hoped to already be in construction on the garage. Commissioner Kiefer asked the petitioner if he is planning on starting the house imme diately after constructing the The petitioner stated within a reasonable timeframe. C rear of the house and not all that visible from the street. Driving up and down the street, Chairman Sobkoviak could see there was an extreme amount of diversity on the street. He further stated to the rear of the yard there is mature foliage. H did not have any objection. C Javoronok stated she did not believe there have been similar variances. The house to the south and east also had a height determination for a similar carriage house. There was a brief discussion about the formula that was determined for height determination. C when remodeled. The petitioner said yes. Commissioner Segge bruch stated the two structures will blend when comple Commissioner Seggebruch asked the petitioner if the front of the new garage is roughly in the same location as the existing garage. The petitioner replied it is within 2 feet. The garage does extend further back to the east as it is longer. C C the size of the lot and the uniqueness of the size of the lot, based on the existing character and fabric of this neighborhood, does make it unique and would justify some relief or justification for a variance. Commissioner Renzi was satisfied. C petitioner replied he plans to live there. Commissioner Segge bruch asked the petitioner if the primary reason for doing garage first is to give the petitioner a better base of operatio n for doing the addition on the house. The petitioner replied that was the case. The garage at the present time is real small. C setbacks. C comes back to the Commission at a later date and states he does not have the funding to do the house. Planner Javorono stated she did not know if there was anything the Village could do at that point.
Village of Plainfield Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes October 20, 2009 Page 3 of 3 ommissioner Renzi asked the petitioner ab out stipulation #4. The petitioner stated he felt it was a pretty decent t now rs t 7:37 p.m. Commissioner Kiefer ma de a motion that the Plan Commissi on recommend approval of the requested d the requiremen ts of the Village Engineer, tection District, o years of the date of occupancy permit for the garage. ommissioner Heinen seconded the motion. hairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. ye: Renzi, Kiefer, Seggebruch , Heinen, Chairman Sobkoviak he motion is carried 5:0 C timeframe. He could not be sure what he would run into with the garage construction. It is not a feasible time righ the way the weather is to start a project. There was a discussi on about the wording for Stipulation #4 in the staff report. The Commission decided the wording of stipulation #4 to be, “Begin remodeling of the existing residence within two yea of the date of occupancy permit for the garage.” A variance to permit an accessory structure that is larger than the principal structure for the property located at 15311 S. Corbin Street, subject to the 4 stipulations in the staff report noting that the 4 th stipulation was amende by the Plan Commission. 1. Compliance with 2. Compliance with the requirements of th e Plainfield Fire Pro 3. Compliance with the Building Code requirements, 4. Begin remodeling of the existing residence within tw C C A Nay: None T N EW BUSINESS: DJOURN:None A s no further business before the Zoning Board of Appeals Commission, Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the Since there wa meeting at 7:38 p.m. ________________________ espectf tary Village of Plainfield Rully Submitted Carol Millan Planning Secre