Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-18-2018 ZBA Agends PacketZoning Board of Appeals Tuesday, June 19, 2018 7:00 PM Village Boardroom 24401 W. Lockport Street Plainfield, IL 60544 Agenda ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 15, 2018. 05-15-2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes.pdf PUBLIC COMMENTS DEVELOPMENT REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS CASE No.: 1798-053118. VAR REQUEST: Variance (Public Hearing) LOCATION: 13524 S. Arborview Circle APPLICANT: D.R. Horton, INC. 13524 S. Arborview Circle Staff Report and Graphics.pdf DISCUSSION REMINDERS - July 2, 2018 - Next Village Board Meeting at 7:00 p.m. July 3, 2018 - Next Plan Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURN 1 Agenda Item No: Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: June 19, 2018 Submitted by: Tracey Erickson Submitting Department: Planning Department Item Type: Minutes Agenda Section: APPROVAL OF MINUTES Subject: Approval of Minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals held on May 15, 2018. Suggested Action: Attachments: 05-15-2018 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes.pdf 2 Zoning Board of Appeals Record of Minutes Date: May 15, 2018 Location: Village Hall CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL Chairman Kiefer called the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to order at 7:14 p.m. immediately following the Plan Commission meeting. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Heinen, Minnis, Renzi, Seggebruch, Womack, and Chairman Kiefer were present. Commissioner Green was absent. Plainfield Fire Protection District was present. Plainfield Township Park District, Plainfield Public Library District and Plainfield Community Consolidated School District 202 were absent. OTHERS PRESENT: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning; Kendra Kuehlem, Associate Planner; Yuchen Ding, Associate Planner; and Tracey Erickson, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES PUBLIC COMMENTS No Comment DEVELOPMENT REPORT The development report was given during the preceding Plan Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1788-041618.VA 14632 S. Colonial Parkway Tracy Thurston This is a public hearing, the notice and mailings were posted and published in accordance with state statute and local ordinance. Ms. Kuehlem stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow a fence in the corner side yard of their property. The fence will be a six-foot traditional vinyl fence. The applicant is requesting an encroachment into the corner side yard of approximately 19 feet. Ms. Kuehlem further described the type of fence requested as noted in the staff report dated May 9, 2018; and also stated the reasons for this request as noted in the staff report. Ms. Kuehlem reviewed the findings of fact as noted in the staff report dated May 9, 2018. Prior to direction from the Zoning Board of Appeals, staff is suggesting a recommendation of approval. Chairman Kiefer swore Thomas Thurston, applicant. Mr. Thurston stated the fence would be an improvement to the house and neighborhood. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment. Chairman Kiefer swore in Frank Perroni, Liberty Grove’s HOA Board President and Chairman. Mr. Perroni read a statement from the Liberty Grove HOA’s Board in favor of the fence. Commissioner Renzi asked what the distant is fence from the fence to the sidewalk. Ms. Kuehlem stated it will be 13 feet at minimum. Commissioner Renzi asked how the fence will be affixed to the home on the south corner. Mr. Thurston stated some landscaping will be removed and the fence will be next to the house. 3 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Minnis asked the applicant if the fence will be on the north side of the home and if they will be connecting to the neighbor’s fence. Mr. Thurston stated yes. Commissioner Heinen asked if the diagram provide by staff is to scale of where the fence will be located. Ms. Kuehlem stated the drawing is not to scale. Commissioner Heinen asked if the 13 feet from the fence to the property line is what the applicant will be held to. Ms. Kuehlem stated correct. Commissioner Heinen stated the fence would meet the intent of the code if the fence started at the corner of the house and explained why. Commissioner Heinen asked staff if they spoke to the applicant about moving the fence to the corner of the house. Ms. Kuehlem asked the applicant to respond. Chairman Kiefer asked staff if the neighbor has commented of the request. Ms. Kuehlem stated staff has not heard anything from the adjacent residence. Mr. Thruston stated the neighbor does not have a problem with the fence placement. Mr. Perroni indicated that HOA did take the neighbors field of vision into consideration when deciding whether or not to approve the fence. Commissioner Heinen stated he is concerned about setting a precedence. Commissioner Seggebruch asked the applicant if they are the original owners of the home. Mr. Thurston stated yes. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the applicant had a choice of the home placement. Mr. Thurston stated the builder said the house had to face Colonial Parkway. Commissioner Seggebruch explained how the view shed of the neighbor’s front yard would be affected and stated he agrees with Commissioner Heinen’s suggestion of starting the fence at the corner of the house. Commissioner Womack stated he does not need the fence to be closer to the house to support the variance and explained why. Commissioner Womack stated that he appreciates the applicant coming to the commission before putting the fence up. Commissioner Minnis stated he agrees with Commissioner Womack’s thoughts and explained why. Commissioner Minnis stated he is comfortable with the plan as proposed. Chairman Kiefer stated he is comfortable with the plan proposed. Commissioner Heinen stated after looking at it again he is comfortable with the fence coming off the house 9 feet. Commissioner Renzi explained how he interprets the findings of facts in the staff report, and how they affect the application. Commissioner Renzi stated the closer the fence is to the back of the house, the more it will allow the fence to conform to the code. Commissioner Renzi stated if the fence is not moved closer to the house he may vote no. Chairman Kiefer explained his decision process for the variance. Commissioner Seggebruch asked if the applicant will be installing a 6-foot privacy fence. Mr. Thurston stated yes. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend approval of a variance to permit a fence up to 19 feet into the corner side yard for the property located at 14632 S. Colonial Parkway. Seconded by Commissioner Womack. Vote by roll call: Minnis, yes; Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Womack, yes; Heinen, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 6-0. Case No. 1789-041618.VA 14535 S. Colonial Parkway Anthony Fremarek 4 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2018 Page 3 of 4 This is a public hearing, the notice and mailings were posted and published in accordance with state statute and local ordinance. Ms. Kuehlem stated the applicant is seeking a variance to allow an encroachment of the paver sidewalk and driveway into the side yard setback, and driveway width requirement. Ms. Kuehlem further described the type of fence requested as noted in the staff report dated May 9, 2018; and also stated the reasons for this request as noted in the staff report. Ms. Kuehlem reviewed the findings of fact as noted in the staff report dated May 9, 2018. Chairman Kiefer swore Anthony Fremarek, applicant. Mr. Fremarek stated the Zoning Code is not clear regarding paver material as a driveway. Chairman Kiefer asked the applicant if they are using it for a driveway. Mr. Fremarek stated yes and also stated that his neighbors do not have an issue with the pavers. Chairman Kiefer asked for public comment. Chairman Kiefer swore in Frank Perroni, Liberty Grove’s HOA Board President & Chairman. Mr. Perroni stated the Liberty Grove HOA’s Board lacks the ability to approve or deny the improvement because they could not determine the effect of water drainage. Chairman Kiefer asked staff to clarify the Zoning Code regarding driveways. Mr. Proulx stated the code could benefit from improvements. Mr. Proulx stated staff report reflects a level of comfort with the pavers and staff is most concerned with the direction the cars are parked. Mr. Fremarek stated pavers allow water to drain into the ground instead of runoff. Chairman Kiefer asked the applicant if he has noticed water pooling in neighbor’s property. Mr. Framarek stated no. Commissioner Heinen stated he is not concerned with the water drainage and runoff. Commissioner Heinen stated the applicant installed a driveway and the intent of the code is driveways are not to be installed in the setback. Commissioner Heinen stated his concern is the use of the driveway, since the cars are being parked perpendicular, and setting a precedence if the request is approved. Commissioner Heinen asked for clarification on how the driveway is violating code. Mr. Proulx stated the width of driveway at curb, which staff is comfortable with and encroaching 5 feet within the interior side lot line. Commissioner Heinen asked how much of the driveway would need to be removed so it is within code. Mr. Proulx stated approximately 4 feet. Commissioner Heinen stated he would support he applicant removing 4 feet of the driveway, since the car would be parallel with the home. Commissioner Seggebruch stated why he does not see a hardship, since he has a two-car garage and driveway. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the cars parking perpendicular on the driveway will affect the neighbor’s quality of life. Commissioner Seggebruch stated if the driveway and sidewalk can be moved back to abide the setback, he could support the variance. Commissioner Seggebruch indicated he is worried about setting a precedence. Commissioner Heinen asked staff if this type of driveway has been approved before. Mr. Proulx stated staff did not initiate in proactively seeking out a compliance issue. Mr. Proulx indicated the applicant has been diligent and communicating with staff, and this has been going on for a period of time. Mr. Proulx indicated the applicant took the initiative to submit the application to come into compliance. Mr. Proulx stated he is not aware of a situation that this configuration of parking has been proposed. 5 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes May 15, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Renzi asked staff how this was compatible with being in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Mr. Proulx explained how staff determined that finding of fact. Commissioner Renzi explained how he interprets the findings of fact in the staff report affecting the application. Commissioner Renzi stated he served with the applicant on the Plan Commission many years ago. Chairman Kiefer stated he did as well. Commissioner Womack stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Heinen with removing the driveway from the setback. Commissioner Womack indicated as it is now, he cannot support it. Chairman Kiefer indicated that he has a problem with the driveway being in the setback. Commissioner Minnis stated he agrees with making modifications to bring it out of the setback. Commissioner Minnis indicated he is concerned about the use of the driveway, the direction the cars are being parked, and the encroachment into the setback. Commissioner Heinen indicated he is fine with the sidewalk staying in the setback but would like the 4 feet to be eliminated from the driveway to accommodate a parallel parking space. Commissioner Renzi indicated he agrees with Commissioner Heinen with not disturbing the sidewalk and stated he would be in favor if that. Chairman Kiefer asked the applicant if he is willing to reduce the size of the driveway. Mr. Framarek explained how he can reconfigure the driveway, so the cars can be parked on an angle. Commissioner Seggebruch stated the intent of the flare of a 3-car driveway is to make the turn so the cars can be parked parallel on the driveway. Chairman Kiefer asked staff to explain what will happen depending on the direction the vote goes, since there does not seem to be much support. Mr. Proulx explained what the options are for this evening and moving forward. Commissioner Seggebruch made a motion to deny the findings of fact of staff as articulated at this meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend denial of a variance to permit a driveway encroachment of up to four feet into the side yard setback, and a driveway width at the curb line of 26 feet for the property located at 14535 S. Colonial Parkway. Seconded by Commissioner Renzi. Vote by roll call: Heinen, yes; Minnis, yes; Womack, yes; Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, yes; Kiefer, yes. Motion carried 6-0. Commissioner Heinen made a motion to recommend approval of a variance to permit a sidewalk encroachment of up to four feet into the side yard setback, and a driveway width at the curb line of 26 feet for the property located at 14535 S. Colonial Parkway. Seconded by Commissioner Minnis. Vote by roll call: Renzi, yes; Seggebruch, no; Womack, yes; Minnis, yes; Heinen, yes; Kiefer, no. Motion carried 4-2. DISCUSSION Chairman Kiefer read the reminders. Meeting Adjourned at 8:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted by Tracey Erickson Recording Secretary 6 Agenda Item No: Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: June 19, 2018 Submitted by: Tracey Erickson Submitting Department: Planning Department Item Type: Variance Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS Subject: CASE No.: 1798-053118. VAR REQUEST: Variance (Public Hearing) LOCATION: 13524 S. Arborview Circle APPLICANT: D.R. Horton, INC. Suggested Action: Attachments: 13524 S. Arborview Circle Staff Report and Graphics.pdf 7 TO: FROM: DATE: REGARDING: REQUEST: APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: COMP.PLAN: DISCUSSION 1i111 rii'm11 .. 111 -11•11~.L!. ..... ---. I I •1i:•1•=••11 T 111 VILLAGE 0~ PLAINFIELD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS @ KENDRA KUEHLEM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER JUNE 14, 2018 REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 13524 S. ARBORVIEW CIRCLE CASE No.: 1798-053118. VAR Variance (Public Hearing) D.R. Horton, INC. 13524 S. Arborview Circle R-1 Low Density Single-Family Residential District Low Density Residential Michael P. Collins PRESIDENT Michelle Gibas VILLAGE CLERK TRUSTEES Margie Bonuchi Bill Lamb Cally Larson Larry D. Newton Edward O'Rourke Brian Wojowski The applicant is seeking a variance to allow an encroachment of the building foundation into the rear yard setback of approximately two and a half feet. Existing Conditions/Site Context The subject property is a 10,185 square-foot lot located on South Arborview Circle. To date, the basement and foundation have been poured for the building. It is Lot 58 in Neighborhood 16 of the Grande Park subdivision. The adjacent land uses, zoning, and street classifications are as follows: East: Single-family detached residential (R-1); Grande Park Boulevard (Local) West: Single-family detached residential (R-1) South: Single-family detached residential (R-1); Arborview Circle (Local) North: Single-family detached residential (R-1) ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting relief from the regulation that rear yard setbacks must be a minimum of 30-feet from the property line for residential lots, in the Grand Park subdivision. There was an 24401 W. Lockport Street Plainfield, IL 60544 Phone (815) 436-7093 Fax (815) 436-1950 Web.www.plainfield-il.org 8 REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page #2 of 3 1798-053118.VAR 6/14/2018 13524 S. ARBORVIEW CIRCLE- FOUNDATION VARIANCE error during the construction process, in which the a small corner of the building foundation was built over the rear yard setback at 27.7 feet from the property line. Further construction on the home was suspended pending the outcome of this variance. In accordance with Section 9-33 of the Village’s Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall not recommend approval of, nor shall the Village Board grant a variance from the regulations of the Zoning Ordinance unless it makes the following findings based on the evidence presented. The petitioner is seeking relief from Section 9-54 of the Zoning Code, which establishes general standards for residential districts, including setback requirements. The findings are as follows: a) The variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Ordinance; As set forth in Section 9-4 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Ordinance is adopted for a number of reasons, including the purpose of protecting the public health, safety and general welfare of the Village; maintaining and promoting orderly land use patterns; protecting the quality of life for Village residents; protecting the character of existing residential neighborhoods; and implementing the Village’s policies and goals, to include those of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff believes that the current location of the home, and the foundation are compatible with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff believes that the requested setback is of minimal difference/change/variation, and would not alter the quality of life or character of the neighborhood, nor hinder the public health, safety and welfare. b) The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and thus strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would result in practical difficulties or impose exceptional hardships due to the special and unusual conditions that are not generally found on other properties in the same zoning district; While the conditions of this property are due to construction error, (and not natural site conditions), staff believes that enforcing the rear yard setback regulation would incur a significant expense and disrupt a large portion of the yard to remove the building’s foundation. c) The property cannot yield a reasonable use if permitted only under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Ordinance; and Staff believes that the property could yield a reasonable use if permitted only under the conditions allowed by the Zoning Ordinance, but would require the applicant to reconstruct the foundation of the building. d) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality and will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staff finds that if granted, the variance would not cause detriment to the properties immediately east and west of the subject site. The foundation sits over the rear setback a 9 REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Page #3 of 3 1798-053118.VAR 6/14/2018 13524 S. ARBORVIEW CIRCLE- FOUNDATION VARIANCE minimal amount, not obstructing any lines of sight, nor altering the appearance of the cul-de- sac. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis, prior to public hearing and discussion from the Zoning Board of Appeals, staff recommends approval. Should the Zoning Board of Appeals concur, the following motion is offered for your consideration: I move we adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Zoning Board of Appeals and recommend approval of a variance to permit a building foundation encroachment of up to two and a half feet into the rear yard setback, for the property located at 13524 S. Arborview Circle. 10 11 12 13