Title/Name/Summary
Coyle's Resubdivision
History
PROJECT: Coyle Resubdivision
PETITIONER: Henry Coyle
PURPOSE: The petitioner requests to re-subdivide three of the existing un-developed lots in the Coyle Subdivision into two lots.
LOCATION: 10742, 10734 and 10726 Coyle Court, accessed from 108th Avenue.
PIN: 27-05-402-012-0000; 27-05-402-013-0000; 27-05-402-014-0000
ATTACHMENTS: Coyle Re-subdivision Preliminary Plan, Coyle’s Re-subdivision of lots 1,2 and 3, original six lot subdivision, aerial.
SIZE: 1.51 acre total area to be re-subdivided into two lots: 37,156 and 28,568 square feet in size.
EXISTING ZONING: R-1
EXISTING LAND USE: Undeveloped with the exception of Lot # 6 that includes the home that existed prior to subdivision.
SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE:
South: BIZ, business district office buildings
North: E-1 Estate residential
East: R-1 residential Tamarack Estates and unincorporated land
West: R-2 Ashford Estates residential
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: low intensity residential 2 dwelling units per acre
TRANSPORTATION: Coyle Court access is from 108th Avenue.
PLANNING OVERVIEW and DISCUSSION:
The Coyle Subdivision was originally approved by the Village Board in 1998 as a six lot subdivision. The property was also re-zoned to R-1 residential with front and rear setback variances and a road right of way variance. The roadway has been constructed with a 50’ right of way, however the new lots remained undeveloped. In 2006, a small parcel was consolidated, and added to lot # 5. Now the petitioner proposes to re-subdivide the approved lots 1,2, and 3, into two new lots, lot #7 and lot #8, in order to meet the needs of potential buyers. The proposed re-subdivision will result in a five lot subdivision. No other changes are proposed to the subdivision. The impact on the surrounding area will be lessened since there will be two homes rather than the originally approved three homes.
BULK REQUIREMENTS:
A front yard setback Variance was approved along with the original six lot subdivision that allows a 30’ front building setback line for all the lots. A rear setback minimum of 33.75’ was approved for lots 2, 3, & 4 only. A Variance was also granted to reduce the road that has been constructed from a 60’ right of way to a 50’ right of way. There are no changes to the originally approved Variances, other than the extension of the rear yard Variance to include the original lot 1, so the same rear setback extends along the entire rear property line of the two newly proposed lots. The front setback variance was already granted to the original subdivision, but needs to be restated since it now applies to different lot numbers. Lot size minimums in the R-1 District for square footage and width are still met under the proposed re-subdivision.
VARIANCE STANDARDS
When considering an application for a variance, the decision making body shall consider the extent to which:
1. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be used
only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it
is located;
2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances;
3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality;
4. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical
conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would
result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these
regulations were carried out;
5. The conditions upon which the petition for a variation is based are unique to the
property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable, generally, to other
property;
6. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by these regulations and has not
resulted from any act of the applicant or any other person presently having an
interest in the property subsequent to the effective date hereof, whether or not in
violation of any portion thereof;
7. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
property is located or otherwise be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, any
adopted overlay plan or these regulations;
(8/99)
8. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property, or substantially increase the congestion in the public streets, or
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood;
9. The variance granted is the minimum adjustment necessary for the reasonable
use of the land; and
10. Aforesaid circumstances or conditions are such that the strict application of the
provisions of this Section would deprive the applicant of any reasonable use of his or
her land. Mere loss in value shall not justify a variance; there must be deprivation of
all beneficial use of land.
It is the responsibility of the petitioner to prove that all standards will be met.
Note:
1. This approval is subject to meeting Building Code
2. This approval is subject to meeting Engineering related items.
This is now before Plan Commission for consideration.
I move to accept as findings of fact of this Plan Commission the findings of fact set forth in this staff report, dated June 23, 2009;
and
I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of the site plan and re-subdivision of three of the lots into two lots as shown on the plan titled Coyle’s Re-subdivision Preliminary Plan by KDC Consultants and dated May 6, 2009, subject to the submission of a Record Plat of Subdivision to the Village for recording;
and
I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Variance for a 25% setback reduction to allow a 30’ minimum front setback and a 33.75’minimum rear yard setback for the proposed lot 7 (seven) and proposed lot 8 (eight).
Recommended Action/Motion
PARISI: I move to accept as findings of fact of this Plan Commission the findings of fact set forth in this staff report, dated June 23, 2009,
and
I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of the site plan and re-subdivision of three of the lots into two lots as shown on the plan titled Coyle’s Re-subdivision Preliminary Plan by KDC Consultants and dated May 6, 2009, subject to the submission of a Record of Plat of Subdivision to the Village for recording;
and
I move to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Variance for a 25% setback reduction to allow a 30’ minimum front setback and a 33.75’ minimum rear yard setback for the proposed lot 7 (seven) and proposed lot 8 (eight).
DZIERWA: Second