HomeMy Public PortalAbout1990-02-06 PC minutesPLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
DATE: February 6, 1990 AT: Village Hall
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chairman Simmons, Vice - Chairman Sobkoviak,
W. Schempf, H. Bayer, J. Anderson.
EX- OFFICIO PRESENT: L. Kelly, G. Krahn, D. Norris,
E. Schrader, D. Neir
ALSO PRESENT: P. J. Waldock, Village Planner
K. Jania, Secretary
Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Roll call
was taken. M. Krippel, R. Mentzer, M. Gehrke, and J. Wilson were
absent.
There being no additions or corrections, the minutes of the
December 19, 1989 and January 16, 1989 meetings were approved as
presented.
Case No. 250- 11590S - Floor, Store and More, Inc., Larry Kinsella,
Manager. Requesting special sign approval in the Central Sign District
for property at 609 N. Desplaines Street.
Mr. Waldock reported the subject site is the former Scott Trucking
building.— Proposed is the installation of two 3' x 16' signs (48 sq. ft.)
on the structure. The building is a contemporary structure and sign
style is also contemporary.
Applicant proposes to install one sign along each street frontage
adjacent to the building. Ordinance allows corner locations to have one
wall sign for each wall facing the public street. Sign area is limited
to one square foot for every lineal foot of facade frontage. In this
case, 96 square feet of signage is allowable.
There was a question as to ownership of the corner lot. It was found
the building also owns the corner lot. It is a separate and buildable
lot, but in the present status of one ownership it is seen by staff
as being a common property and therefore the subject building would be
considered as a corner building at this time.
W. Schempf moved to recommend to the Village Board that they approve
the sign request for Floor, Store and More, Inc. at 609 N. Desplaines
Street. Seconded by J. Anderson. Vote by roll call.
Sobkoviak, yes; Schempf, yes; Bayer, yes; Anderson, yes; Simmons, yes.
5 yes, 0 no. Motion carried.
PLAINFIELD
February 6,
Page Two
PLAN COMMISSION
1990
County Case - Anthony Cerra
Requesting variance from County zoning regulations for frontage
width from 300' to 177.671 and special use permit for a second
residence on site.
Location: Approximately one-half mile north of 127th Street in
Section 29 of Wheatland Township.
Mr. Waldock reported applicants previously had requested a rezoning
and variance for the subject site. The application has now been
amended to delete the zoning aspect and now includes only the frontage
variance request. Will County Zoning Ordinance required 300' minimum
frontage. Applicant is requesting .a frontage variance from 3001 down
to 177.671. Subject site contains a horse stable and mobile home.
Applicants are requesting a variance in order to build a permanent
structure on the narrow portion of the site (eastern portion).
Also requested is a special use permit to allow two residences on
the site.
The concerns regarding the previous . request mentioned at Village Board
level focused on the proposed 2.5 acre E-2 rezoning area. It appeared
that there was a possibility of subdividing the site to separate the
acre E-2 area from the remainder of the site. This would have
created two nonconforming parcels where one now exists.
In staff's opinion it is generally felt that a single-family dwelling
is appropriate land use in an agricultural property. Further, division
of the tract is not permissible without future variances and would not
be advisable. However, since no other permanent dwelling structure now
occupies the subject site, staff find ' s no objection to the variance
request in this case. It is felt that the existing mobile home as an
accessory use (a caretaker's residence) for the stable facility is
reasonable. Historically, mobile homes have been permitted in
agricultural areas as a secondary residence.
Attorney John Peterson was present on behalf of Petitioner, Anthony
Cerra and presented copies of notices sent to adjoining landowners.
He stated Mr. and Mrs. Cerra would like to build a home adjacent to
the objector site. Mr. Cerra is retired. He and his wife do not
intend to run the stable except as managers. Hired help will be living
in the trailer. He stated in discussing this with the County, the
County felt an amended request would be the best way to go.
Mr. and Mrs. Cerra wish to build their home and do not wish-to change
the zoning. Attorney Peterson also stated there is a long history to
the discord between the objectors and the Cerras.
PLAINFIELD PLAN COMMISSION
February 6, 1990
Page Three
Mr. Keeley, adjoining landowner, was present and stated his objections
to the applicant's request. He feels the Cerras, knowing what the
zoning was, went ahead and put a barn and trailer on the property
violating County zoning ordinances. Knowing what the zoning was, the
property was bought as a nonconforming piece of land, the Cerras bought
it anyway. They knew what they were getting into. When they
purchased the land they had ample opportunity to buy additional ground
to the south of them and get the correct amount of frontage they wanted.
They failed to do so. Mr. Keeley stated he is objecting because they
knew what they were getting into when they started and feels this is
a self-imposed hardship.
Attorney Peterson answered the objector's statements with a history
of the discord between the applicant and the objector. He also talked
about the history on how the subject site was developed, and the zoning
problems. He further commented the objectors are operating two homes
on 6 acres and the petitioners cannot have two homes on 16 acres.
There was some discussion regarding County zoning regulations.
J. Sobkoviak moved to recommend to the Village Board to deny the
amended County land use application for Anthony Cerra requesting
• frontage variance from 300' to 177.67' and a special use permit for
• second residence in an A-1 Agricultural zoning district.
Seconded by H. Bayer. Vote by roll call.
Anderson, no; Bayer, yes; Schempf, no; Sobkoviak, yes; Simmons, no.
2 yes, 3 no. Motion failed.
Chairman Simmons stated the Plan Commission therefore has no objection
to the Cerras' petition.
Mr. Waldock reported Coilplus, Inc. is planning a building extension
at their site. They plan to add 40.044 sq. ft. of steel coil storage
to the existing building of 106,216 sq. fit— In a letter dated
February 5, .1990 from Coilplus they state that since the project involves
a building extension of less than 500 of the original building area, they
feel that a full site plan review should be unnecessary.
After discussion, it was the consensus of the Plan Commission that a
site plan review is necessary according to our ordinance.
Adjourn: 8:10 p.m.
Kay Jania,
cretary
Would everyone attending this Plan Commission meeting
please sign this sheet for our official records.
NAML
A A
ADDRESS
.1 Id
4
h(,