Coal City Planning and Zoning Board considers corner sideyard variance
Coal City Planning and Zoning Board met Tuesday, July 5.
Here is the agenda as provided by Coal City:
COAL CITY PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
TUESDAY JULY 5, 2016 7 P.M.
COAL CITY VILLAGE HALL 515 S. BROADWAY, COAL CITY, ILLINOIS
1, Call meeting to order
2. Approval of Minutes-June 6, 2016
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING
3. Variance Request
615 East Campbell Dr. Michael & Alecia Foote
i. Swear in Testimonials
ii. Petitioner’s Request
iii. Public Comment
iv. Board Consideration
v. Action on Request
a. Annexation of RMR Investments Property
b. Anti-Monotony Requirement
TO: Planning & Zoning Board
FROM: Matthew T. Fritz
Date: July 5, 2016
RE: AGENDA ITEMS FOR JULY 5* MEETING
Corner Sideyard Variance, 615 E. Campbell
Mr. & Mrs. Foote would like to place a shed within the corner side yard at their house at 615 E. Campbell within the Richards Crossing subdivision. The current fence, located along their sideyard would be relocated within the corner sideyard as well. The shed would be located within the fenced-in portion of the property and would not require a curb cut onto Thomas. The public hearing has been set for the evening of Tuesday, July 5".
Pertinent Code Section[s]
Section 156.161 Section 156.171
Consideration of 1630 S. Broadway Annexation
Jack Riley, who is the owner of Cardinal Transportation, has represented to the Village, he would like to annex the former Lavezzi Plumbing Building into Coal City. This building is currently housing the Help for Hope assistance group, but will house a transportation company similar in scope to the full-time administrative staff housed at Cardinal Transportation. This company is moving from Joliet and will result in many of the employees coming along to the location. However, Mr. Riley is hoping the company will require additional employees as it grows and succeeds.
This property is currently unincorporated and must be annexed into the Village in order to be a matter of Coal City zoning and building permit review. Those steps have begun and a petition for re-zoning with a conditional use is expected to be the matter of a public hearing at the August 1" meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board. Mr. Riley is merely improving the interior of the existing structure owned by RMR Investments, LLC. He would like the property to be used in a similar fashion as is allowed by Grundy County currently, i.e. allowing outside industrial storage and the utilization of gravel improvements instead of being required to pour asphalt.
Anti-Monotony Code Language
Currently, Section 156-82 sets forth the anti-monotony requirements within the Village. At the last meeting, the current language was discussed. George Gray will be in attendance and discuss the anti-monotony conditions a bit further after having completed some research. Defining color differentiation is proving very difficult and may result in some additional requirements that have not traditionally been considered except for Richards Crossing and Meadow Estates (due to their subdivision requirements).
Findings of Fact. The Zoning Board of Appeals find the following concerning 615 E. Campbell
1. Special Circumstances Not Found Elsewhere. The property is a corner lot and has a great deal of the open recreational area of the property contained within the corner side yard unlike a majority of the residential lots within the area.
2. Unnecessary Hardship. Being unable to utilize such a large portion of the residential lot for recreational space would cause an unnecessary hardship since the erection of a fence according to the petition would not interfere with vehicular traffic at the adjacent intersection.
3. Preserves Rights Conferred by the District. The shed shall be built and sized within the maximum allowable square footage and the exterior shall match the residential area.
4. Necessary for Use of the Property. Being adjacent to Thomas Street, the use of a fence within the corner side yard shall allow safe enjoyment of the corner side yard area without constant supervision of minors.
5. Consistency with the Local Area and Comprehensive Plan. Granting this variance is consistent with the principles provided in the Comprehensive Plan. The use shall stay residential and vision safety within the adjacent intersection shall be maintained.
6. Minimum Variance Recommended. The petitioner has requested a variance consistent with other corner side yards considered previously within the residential subdivision, leaving 10 feet from the side yard boundary.