HomeMy Public PortalAbout2001-02-20 ZBA minutesMINUTES PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: February 20, 2001 AT: Village Meeting Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Sobkoviak said for purposes of expediency we are going to run concurrently the Plainfie ld Zoning Board of Appeals and Plainfield Plan Commission for the first case. He said after which the Zoning Board of Appeals will adjourn and the Plan Commission meeting will continue. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schinde rle, Sobkoviak Absent: Commissioner Anderson Park, School, Fire and Library Districts The minutes from August 15, 2000 were accepted as presented. CASE NO: 854 -011801.V/SPR ANIMAL CARE CENTER Planner Garrigan said this is an application for a variance and site plan review. He said the site is located on Rt. 59, north of this property is Chemlawn, across the street is Plainfield Molding plant, just north of the viaduct and south of Plainfield Police Department. He said the applicant is seeking to inco rporate an addition of approximately 1200 square feet to the southeastern portion of the existing animal hospital. He said the applicant is seeking a variance from the 15 feet interior side yard setback that is required in the B -4 district. He said the proposed addition to the existing structure would be within 4.5 feet of the applicant’s interior side yard lot so consequently the applicant is seeking a variance. Planner Garrigan said with respect to the site plan – the first aspect is parking and driv eways. He said the proposed addition will not change the parking configurations. He said there is ample parking to serve the proposed addition. He said according to the Village Ordinance 4 additional parking spaces would be required. He said currently there are over 45 parking spaces and this conforms with the requirements of the Village. He stated with regard to architecture – the proposed elevations the applicant has submitted conform with the requirement of 25% masonry. He said with regard to lands caping - the applicant would be required to provide 2 approved plantings. He said the only issue Staff raises is in regard to the trash enclosure. He said currently there is a trash enclosure located on the property lying between Chemlawn and the applica nt’s property and currently it is not enclosed with any type of enclosure. He said Staff would recommend that a full enclosure either wooden or masonry be incorporated. Planner Garrigan said with respect to the variance, the applicant must comply with the following findings of fact before a variance can be granted. He said the first component is that the variance is in harmony with the general zoning ordinance. He said Staff believes in view of the fact that this property is in the commercial area, wi th Chemlawn being to the north that the proposed addition would be in harmony of the area. He said secondly strict enforcement of the zoning
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 2001 Page 2 ordinance interior side yard requirements would result in practical difficulties. He said the applicant has a uni que situation here in view of the fact that much if not most of the site of the animal care is in fact floodplain. He said in view of that fact, there are certain limitations with respect to where he can build his proposed addition. He said in view of t he limitations of this site with respect to the existing floodplain and in view of the current configurations of the parking which have been in existence for some time, Staff believes that the applicant has meet the second test with respect to variance. H e said in regard to the third test that the property cannot yield a reasonable use if permitted only under the conditions. He said with respect to current business, there is a request to expand his business. He said with the limitations of the site, if a pplicant is not allowed to expand his business there would be problems. He said the fourth variable with respect to the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. He said in view of the fact that they share a parkin g lot with Chemlawn, across the street is the Plainfield Molding Company as in the commercial corridor, is consistent with the character of the area. He said Staff recommends approval of the site plan with stipulations listed in Staff’s report. He said S taff also recommends approval of the variance with stipulations in Staff’s report. Commissioner Schinderle asked if the applicant was losing any property because of the widening of Rt. 59. Planner Garrigan said yes, it is his understanding that there is some reconfiguration of the parking spaces because of the expansion of Rt. 59. He said they also lost their original full access entrance because of IDOT’s improvements to Rt. 59. Commissioner Schinderle said he is kind of between a rock and a hard pla ce. Anthony Kramer, owner and applicant, said there was an entire reconfiguration of the front and to add rear parking to accommodate the lost parking in the front. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if they were now sharing a driveway entrance with Chemlawn. D r. Kramer said yes. Chairman Sobkoviak said he recalled an earlier case with Chemlawn where we encouraged both parties to work together to solve parking issues and driveway issues. He said he thought they did a very good job of accomplishing that. Rob ert Edwards, construction manager for Dr. Kramer, showed the reconfiguration of the parking approved by the Village Engineer. He explained that at that time they had developed a phase 1 and phase 2 parking proposal. He said what ended up happening in wor king with Chemlawn next door the north side was reconfigured relocating the dumpster location and they need to finish the enclosure. He said that actually provided them with some additional parking along that side and moved the entrance over. He said wit h this plan we reconfigured the phase 2 area deleting the entrance as it was and showed the new one. He said the hardship is the fact that most of the property is floodplain and this is the only area they have left. Chairman Sobkoviak said he thought an additional hardship could be identified as the widening of Highway 59 and the expansion of the right -of -way.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 2001 Page 3 Robert Edwards said they are working out the issues with the Village Engineer as well as with Michael. He explained the addition to the building – it would be brick on the lower portion which is what the building is right now – it would be solid masonry so they would have block on the interior and brick on the exterior, the gable end would be done in driv -it which is consistent with the rest of the building. He said the addition would conform with the existing building. He said it would be an excellent looking building. He said as soon as Rt. 59 is done, we need to reconfigure the front to complete their phase 1 parking. He said they are in the p rocess of working that out with the Village Engineer now. Joe Regis, representative of Village Engineer, stated they had written a letter dated February 15, 2001, explaining they need to analysis in more detail the floodplain. He said that is something t hey will work on before this goes to Village Board. Chairman Sobkoviak said basically you have some issues regarding the floodplain and possibility of compensatory storage. Robert Edwards said he and Joe spoke today. He said they need to look at the pla n that was previously improved with the Rt. 59 improvements and make whatever adjustments they need to make. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for public comments. There were no public comments. He asked for the Commissioners comments. Commissioner Kachel sai d the fact that this was built a few years ago, the fact with the floodplain the way it is there, talking about compensatory storage. He asked if they had been working with the Park District, he said they are trying to get their walkway, bike path back th ere, as far as any easements or anything. He said he knew this was way before you built yours. Dr. Kramer said he and John Vann have had numerous discussions about it. He said they have 6 acres, obviously a very small portion of that is buildable. Co mmissioner Kachel asked if there would be compensatory storage back there for the Park District or anything. He said it would be nice to tie it all together. He said he had no problem with what you are doing right now. Dr. Kramer said some of the idea s they have are excellent and they would love to have a nice path back there. Commissioner Manning asked if most of the parking and trash enclosure was on Chemlawn property. Dr. Kramer said that was part of the easements that they agreed upon. He said t hat is why the garbage dumpster enclosure isn’t done. Robert Edwards explained the parking and driveway existing and new. He explained they gave up 2 handicap spots and the dumpster and in turn they ended up with 7 spaces plus the dumpster. Commission er Manning asked what they meant by giving it up.
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes February 20, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Edwards explained the reconfiguration did not exist before and they lost that but gained all the additional parking. He said it turned out to be a win win. Chairman Sobkoviak said they raised the gra de, the original entrance was to the south of their property and they raised the grade to a point where it was practically unnegotiable by an automobile. He said by necessity they had to move the entrance to the north. He said it turned out that Chemlawn wanted their entrance to the south edge so we encouraged both parties to negotiate a solution to the problem where they would both share a common drive. Chairman Sobkoviak said according to the Staff report it appears the petitioner meets the four chal lenges normally used to judge if a variance is allowable. He said it appears the petitioner is ready to meet all the requirements of the plan to conform to Village ordinances for site plan review. He said it doesn’t appear there are any impediments. He said compliance with the requirements of the Village Engineer would solve compensatory storage pending Howard and Joe’s review of the engineering study. He said the Planner’s report also requires compliance with the recommendations of the Fire Protection District and also requires the addition of landscaping plantings and trash receptacle enclosure in accordance with the site plan review ordinance which the petitioner has agreed to. He said it appears everything would be in order to grant a variance and a pproving the site plan review for this parcel. Commissioner Kachel asked if they could come up with something better than a straight fence for the trash enclosure. He said there are so many of those in town, seen from a distance after a few years they ta ke away from the whole building. He said you have a good looking building there. He said your building has always been taken care of very nicely. Commissioner Schinderle made a motion to recommend approval of the site plan as the applicant has met the n ecessary findings and this has to be subject to the three stipulations in the Planner’s report and further recommend approval of the variance request as it meets the four findings as listed in the staff report and must also comply with the two stipulations in the Planner’s report. Commissioner Gehrke seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: AYE: Kachel, Gehrke, Manning, Schinderle, Sobkoviak NAY: None Vote 5 -0 Motion carried. Chairman Sobkoviak suggested the applicant keep in touch with Staff for the dat e of Village Board consideration. Meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M. Merrilee Eighner, Secretary